Holiday Armageddon

Posted on December 20, 2011 by Mike Shortall

In recent years it seems to be easier and easier to find examples of man-made, Christmas-related conflict surrounding even the most innocuous of holiday traditions and expressions. These conflicts run the gamut from serious issues of public policy to the silliness demonstrated by the content of this post.

Last week I addressed the situation in Loudon County, Virginia where Santa Claus was crucified in a confluence of Free Speech and Poor Governance.

But a fight of a completely different hue erupted this season in Doylestown, PA. The trouble was Colored Christmas Lights, my friend. And that’s Trouble with a capital T!

In the tradition of the Hatfields and the McCoys, the Capulets and the Montagues, the Bloods and the Crips, it was white lights vs. colored lights. One side espoused tradition, elegance and a Code of Conformity against a rebellion of flash and festiveness instigated by the free-spirited. Each side dug in behind barricades constructed from long-held beliefs of what Christmas is supposed to look like; not just on one’s own house, but on the neighbor’s house next door and the one across the street.

The battlefield was the neighborhood streets. Progress in the conflict was expressed in monetary fines accumulated vs. the number of homes that decided to join The Rebels against The Establishment.

The Establishment was represented by humorless, dour functionaries draped in flowing robes of white. They stared down from their castle ramparts upon the rebellious rabble, who no longer appreciated the purity and tradition conveyed by their flawless, heaven-like white lights. They persisted in the observance of the community’s established Holiday Standard; and they cast judgement on that criminal element who dared challenge the long-held view of White Lights Only!

The Rebels scurried about in open defiance, dressed in Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoats. They threw splashes of vibrant color all over the landscape; protested The Law of the Land; and teased the doddering, unflinching Establishment with Christmas landscapes full of Color, devoid of White. They egregiously violated the Creed of Suburban Holiday Propriety, and responded to all efforts to control them by ratcheting up the assault of reds, blues, greens, purples and yellows. And when The Establishment cajoled, then scolded, then threatened, the Rebels reached for their nuclear option … The Lighted Reindeer!

And that’s what this holiday season has looked like in Doylestown Station.

The problem originated with an overreaching homeowners association. These associations are created in the spirit of preserving atmosphere and cleanliness by way of conformity. The goal is admirable; but if unchecked, the absence of boundaries will always cause problems for the rule setters.

People don’t like to be told what to do by someone who’s not their parents, their boss, or their spouse … not when they spend so much of their time doing the things they do because of their parents, their boss, or their spouse. They are willing to submit only as far as they can relate a restriction to a common benefit. Once The Standard pushes past the point where the ideal crosses the pragmatic, resistance is sure to flourish. That was the crux of The Great Holiday Lights Debacle.

It’s one thing to legislate one color of garage door or what kind of fence is permissible. Some homeowners can appreciate that – on a basic level – conformity with standards can provide a lasting sense of a sedate, tidy quality of life. You don’t want Billy Bob’s house next door looking like a Caribbean brothel, especially when you paid a lot of money to move away from your old neighbor, who had six Volkswagens in varying states of decay in static display on his front lawn.

But even then, many swear an oath never to live under the thumb of Neighborhood Oppression. Some homeowners associations are shadows of authority, preferring to stick to cutting the grass in common spaces. Others seem to thrive on legislating conformity and swinging The Big Stick at non-compliants.

It’s a much higher level of intrusion though to demand conformity over such temporary displays like Christmas lights. Holiday decorations – whether inside the home or outside on the rain gutters – often go directly to one’s familial traditions or their personal interpretation of what makes the Christmas and holiday season so beautiful and enjoyable. The Doylestown Station example screams of all the reasons why so many people find homeowners associations an unacceptable intrusion.

Personally, I like the white lights. They are stately, elegant and clean. But they do not – in my opinion – give a particularly festive appearance. Our house is decorated annually in just about every color on the Christmas spectrum. Because a) That’s the way my family decorated when I was a kid. and b) Our suburban neighborhood had almost all white lights when we moved there one December years ago. In a way I enjoyed being “the rebel”, doing something different from the rest of the ‘hood.

But there were no rules as to what you could display or how you could display it. And every year since we seem to notice more and more color on neighborhood houses at Christmas time.

We just didn’t have to relive The Civil War over it!

For your consideration:

This goes more to the earlier story mentioned in a previous post about Santa on a cross.

This time of year you hear people, especially devote Christians, complaining about a “war on Christmas“. It’s the belief that some parts of society are waging a concerted effort to remove all religious references to Christmas by secularizing or eliminating public displays of Christian symbolism and meaning from the holiday season.

Now whether you buy into that theory or not, let me offer you just one example that – in my opinion – seems to support the “war on Christmas” claims. In Orange County, California a public park that for almost 60 years was the sole domain of local churches for Christmas messages. That has changed this year, and changed rather dramatically.

If you read the article linked above, you will realize the following facts:

There was an ORGANIZED effort to wrest control of the public space from churches by individuals and organizations that – in most cases – ascribed to the exact opposite message to those previously displayed there.
Not only were the local churches almost pushed out (given 3 display locations vs. 14 from prior years), but so was the Santa Monica Police Association who worked with the churches on previous displays.
Of the 18 spaces won by atheist organizations in a lottery (because so many applications for spots were received), ONLY 3 of those 18 “atheist spaces” were ever used. The rest sat vacant.
The messages in the three “atheist spaces” that were used ranged from the innocuous “Happy Solstice” to overtly anti-religious hostility that essentially equated religious conviction with belief in myths.

So there was an organized effort to claim a piece of real estate in order to further the interests of one faction over another. That effort not only involved a level of duplicity (applications with no intent to use the space), but seemed designed specifically to simply deny use by competing interests (churches). In addition, the effort resulted in open hostility directed towards the very nature of those competing interests (their beliefs).

Regardless of your views on public displays of religious symbolism during the holiday season, the role of religion in the country’s founding principles, or the separation of church and state, you certainly might agree that this example sure looks like a war!

Santa Claus crucified

Posted on December 9, 2011 by Mike Shortall

(I strongly recommend NOT OPENING the link that’s included below in the presence of any young children who may still be innocent enough to get a kick out of Santa. – Cranky Man)

A brouhaha erupted in Loudon County, Virginia this week over the content of a holiday display allowed to appear on the courthouse lawn. As has been happening all over the country for years, various groups protest the mixing of religion and government by targeting the long-standing practice of religious Christmas displays appearing on public lands.

The situation in Loudon County, how it developed; the way it was handled; and the end result, renders the issue interesting on several levels.

Loudon’s solution to the challenge to what should be displayed on the courthouse lawn was an attempt to please everyone by trying to avoid the only sensible decision. The Loudon County board decided instead to allow anyone who applied and received approval of their holiday display to show it on the courthouse lawn. (Only 9 display spots were available.)

As a result displays designed by atheist groups, artists and everyday citizens were included along with a traditional nativity scene and Christmas tree. The result – I would think – they should have seen coming from a mile away. This year the displays included one by the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, two that promoted atheism and even one celebrating The Constitution. Last year, there was even a vulgar version of the Twelve days of Christmas.

But the one that caused the big stink this year was Santa on a cross (Please check over your shoulder for little Cindy Lou Who before you click!), featuring a skeleton dressed as Santa Claus hung on a cross. The display – intended to comment on the over-commercialization of Christmas – was promptly vandalized by a woman in the middle of the afternoon in front of news cameras that had come out to report on the controversy.

What was mind-blowing to me was the reaction of County officials who were shocked when the Santa on a cross display appeared. Yet the display had been fully explained and described when the application was submitted for approval!

Who’s been reviewing these applications?!? The Grinch?

In any case, I believe the situation and the way it was handled should be provided as case study material for municipal leaders everywhere as the way NOT to handle such situations.

It is regrettable that Christmas traditions our generation – and those before it – enjoyed every December are being pushed off the public square due to Political Correctness and the resulting legal appeasals. But this country is not the same – in cultural demographics and level of diversity – as it was 40-50 years ago, when we were kids and our parents continued the traditions of their generation. Whether you view that as a good thing or a not-so-good thing, you can’t argue with the fact that it’s simply different now.

My own personal view is that trying to walk that fine line between religion and government only gets more and more perilous the farther you try to toe it, as the Loudon County example illustrates.

As a born and bred Christian, who admittedly struggles with the concept of Church, I enjoy the meaning, the fellowship and all the trappings of a Christian Christmas. And though I appreciate the often misunderstood concept of God as integral to the founding principles of this country, I accept the reality that the judicial concept of separation of church and state (found neither in The Constitution or the Bill of Rights) renders the public display of religious symbols on publicly-owned lands an unwinnable position from which to preserve certain Christmas traditions. That might be a source of constant irritation at this time of year; but there is no chance of ever going back to those “good old days”.

What would have been the better solution for Loudon? To allow everyone to speak their mind on whatever level they relate – or react – to Christmas … all the good, the bad, the preposterous, the blasphemous? Or would the better solution have been to simply not allow any displays on the courthouse lawn aside from the safe and innocuous “Happy Holidays” sign, as offensive as that might be to their Christian sensibilities?

I would have bitten the bullet and opted for the latter in the belief that it would be better to keep what’s precious at this time of the year safe from the disenchanted, the uber politically-correct, and the wackos. If Christmas and all those images and icons we associate with it face the risk of corruption and defilement in the public square just because it’s “public”, is it really worth leaving it in the square?

There are more than enough privately-controlled spaces for us to display our Christian Christmas spirit, on church and private property where we have singular control over what we believe is important to honor with displays. There’s no need for us to expose our beliefs to what amounts to government-approved public comment and – at times – ridicule all for the sake of making a point.

Some of the other possibilities are subject for some interesting discussions.

Interesting that it would have been “scandalous” to place a cross of any kind on public property, yet it was approved for the crucifixion of Santa Claus.
If you cherish the right to free speech, would you be able to stomach the kind of messages that might result from a decision to allow everyone the opportunity to express their Christmas views no matter how offensive or provocative?
Was the woman who ripped down the Santa on a cross display a hero, a censor or a criminal? Was she simply exercising HER right to express herself?
What would happen if someone wanted to display a scene disparaging or criticizing the beliefs or concepts of Hanukkah, Kwanzaa or the Muslim equivalent of Christmas, Eid Al-Fitr?
How far do you think local officials should go to preserve public displays of Christmas themes?
- For a comparison, read how Henderson County, Texas is fighting back.

Merry Christmas!

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.

Josh Shapiro-Leslie Richards: Not your typical “green party” Democrats!

Posted on October 10, 2011 by Mike Shortall

Or how to trash the community you want to serve even BEFORE you get elected!

Used to be, you could count on a Democrat – as a candidate – to stand for certain things, including care for the environment and reasonable control of man’s infringement upon it in the pursuit of worldly treasures.

Not so much though for the two Democrats campaigning to become Montgomery County (PA) Commissioners!

Was driving my son home from Temple University Friday evening when I happened to take Cheltenham Avenue out to Rt. 309 in an attempt to beat rush hour traffic. Didn’t get to see much of 309, but what I saw of Cheltenham Avenue from Broad Street (Rt. 611) all the way out to Ogontz Avenue (Rt. 309) was disturbing and infuriating, especially if you despise trashiness and man-made contributions to urban blight.

Contrary to those environmental concerns that so many Democrats seem to cherish, the Shapiro-Richards campaign decided to blanket Cheltenham Avenue with enough Shapiro-Richards plastic to shrink-wrap the Norristown Courthouse.

From what I saw, the signs are already adding clutter and blight to the sights along that stretch of highway. Many of the signs are coming loose or have been displaced and uprooted. They lay on the sidewalks and street. It’s not too hard to imagine what Cheltenham Avenue is going to look like in two weeks time with all the Shapiro-Richards plastic littering the ground there.

Is it too much to expect a reasonable use of signage?? Maybe a bit of common sense in how many you need to plant or the spacing that might lessen the visual assault???

One wonders exactly how many plastic lawn signs the Shapiro-Richards campaign estimates they will place throughout Montgomery County in the pursuit of nothing more than election-day name recognition?!? Apparently, it’s quite a bit more than what you see on Cheltenham Avenue!

Today, Carol and I decided to drive up to the Philadelphia Outlets in Limerick. As we usually do, we exited the Turnpike at King of Prussia and headed west on Rt. 422. And guess what we saw?

Yep … Long lines of Shapiro-Richards plastic lining both sides of 422 for as far as the eye could see. No, it won’t be too long at all before 422 resembles – at least on one level – Cheltenham Avenue!

At this time of year you expect to see campaign lawn signs throughout your community. It is – unfortunately – what is to be expected. But you would hope that common sense and – above all – consideration for the aesthetic impact of too many signs in too high a concentration in your neighborhood and on the roads you travel might cross a politician’s – or campaign worker’s – mind.

Apparently not so this year from the Shapiro-Richards Plastic Campaign!

Remember that when you consider who you want to run Montgomery County and to protect green spaces and the local environment for the next four years!

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.

I pledge not to pledge!

Posted on July 20, 2011 by Mike Shortall

Other than The Pledge of Allegiance, I know of no pledges worth taking.

For the life of me, I fail to understand the phenomena of committing to pledges as the latest iteration of the dreaded political litmus test. Few of the Republican Presidential hopefuls show the backbone or willingness to be a LEADER! It has gotten to the point where I am forced to agree with a Liberal scribe, such as Karen Heller of The Philadelphia Inquirer, whose Wednesday column reflects my own growing frustration with spine-ophobia.

It is time to begin looking with jaundiced eye at any candidate who feels compelled to kowtow to every political group looking to push a narrow, unyielding agenda. The trend is growing beyond the point of disturbing. Is winning in the Iowa caucuses really worth losing any claim to being a strong, independent leader?!?

Don’t get me wrong. I agree with the underlying premise of some of the more popular pledges. Others however, like Rick Santorum’s public pledge to remain faithful to one’s wife, are simply silly and capricious. If we honestly admit to NEEDING such a pledge, then the problem is magnitudes larger than the objectives of all pledges combined. In reality what we are saying is, “We no longer TRUST you, Mr./Mrs. OfficeSeeker, to use your judgement and do the right thing!” And that to me, says much more about the shallowness of our expectations than it does the worthiness of any candidate.

And what might we expect in the way of governance from candidates who so willingly allow narrow political agendas to bind their feet so tightly as to make compromise impossible? Currently over half of the entire House of Representatives has signed Grover Norquist‘s call for no tax increases.

At this particular time, how does that further the interests of The Country? Does anyone really believe that with skyrocketing national debt and the sacrifices being made on Main Streets throughout The Country, that taxes on the richest cannot ever be raised?

The concept of republican government requires compromise. Without it no progress can be made towards the true goals and interests of the country. There are plenty of areas on both sides where compromise can and should be made. But binding one’s feet only guarantees nothing can be done.

At least ONE candidate has refused to prostrate himself before the pledge seekers. Jon Huntsman, the former Ambassador to China, has steadfastly refused to take any pledges other than The Pledge of Allegiance and his marital pledge to his wife. Interesting that he didn’t seem to need anyone to force him to sign for the latter!

That’s a breath of fresh air!

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!