Half correct on 47% still tells the ugly truth

Posted on September 24, 2012 by Mike Shortall

It’s imperative that write something today, just to break the lazy hangover I have enjoyed all week following the frantic, emotional stress of Mike Jr.’s wedding last week. I promise to follow-up with details and pictures of the great time we had; but that would require sorting through 8000 photos (my estimate) to pick those that would best tell the story of our Lost Weekend in Williamsport. (Trust me. That title connotes a very favorable experience within the crazy motions and emotions of a son’s (or daughter’s) wedding. More on that later … )

I could write about my recent lawn treatment. But that would require an uptick in my Lawn Geek Level that I’m not willing to invest in this Sunday morning.

And so I’ll turn to more recent news, and one of my favorite pastimes … Cranky Political Observations.

First, let’s look at Mitt Romney and some of the absolutely ridiculous claims President Obama‘s campaign and supporters continue to make when it comes to Romney’s wealth and tax history. The important thing to keep in mind is every minute spent defending Romney against such nonsenseical attacks is time diverted from hammering away at the sorry state of The Obama Economy.

Afterall, with almost four years of President Obama’s stewardship, the Economy – or lack thereof – is rightfully his to won! (You only get to blame your predecessor for so long, and certainly not through a full term in The Oval Office when – as President – you have shown no Leadership whatsoever on Issues of Economic Recovery.)

Now Mitt admittedly caused himself a self-inflicted wound with his meanderings on the “47% of Americans who do not pay taxes”. Not paying taxes does not automatically make you a slouch. There are plenty of people, rightfully classified as disabled, aging veterans, etc. who fall into that very broad 47% category. Mitt might have bitten off more than he could chew; but let’s be honest, he was at least 53% correct about that 47%.

Regardless of the dangers associated with judging-by-percentages into which Romney stumbled, we ALL KNOW what he meant. Within that group is a hardcore class of people who have not the slightest interest or desire to break their dependence on the REDISTRIBUTION of other people’s hard work and income! And within that sub-class is another that not only shows little-to-no interest in self-sufficiency, they REVEL in their status as Economic Sponges!

Even Bill Clinton recognized the need to fix this when he joined with Congressional Republicans to pass the Welfare Reform Act of 1996. So this is not news to even the most hardened of Liberals.

Sunday’s Philadelphia Inquirer attempts to make the claim that REDISTRIBUTION of income is not a “bad word”. They try to soft sell this idea by stating that REDISTRIBUTION is used for small business loans, Pell Grants for college education, veterans’ benefits, etc. Of course they also throw in food stamps and welfare, but almost as an afterthought.

Intelligent, reality-educated people can distinguish between good uses for REDISTRIBUTED INCOME and other programs that simply rely on the toils and work ethic of the majority of Americans to fund the never-ending cycle of handouts to perpetual non-contributors. And that’s what MOST objectors to the Welfare Mentality think of when they hear INCOME REDISTRIBUTION … not Pell Grants, small business loans and taking care of aging veterans.

Liberals – and Obama supporters – KNOW this; but it suits their intentions in this 2012 election year to make it about the whole of benefits that come from INCOME REDISTRIBUTION, not the perfectly acceptable Social Contract that expects those who work at good jobs to provide TEMPORARY assistance to those who need a hand up in tough times or even those with legitimate long-term disabilities and maladies that prevent even part-time employment.

Do not allow them to suggest that there is no difference between Good Income Redistribution and the ugly realities of the Welfare State of Mind!

As for Mitt’s tax records, one observation is enough to put that entire subject into perspective. If President Obama’s proxies, like the half-baked Liar from Arizona – Harry Reid, are so desperate as to criticize Romney for tax rates and wealth shelters that were perfectly acceptable for Al Gore (2000) and John “Heinz 57” Kerry (2004), then you must recognize them for what those attacks are … Deperate attempts to distract you, me, and all voters from the Unemployed Economy.

So the more we spend talking about this, the less time we have to address what the REAL PROBLEM is in 2012, the stagnant National Economy and the broken stewardship of a Leadership-challenged President! Those of us longing for REAL Economic Leadership need to ignore these straw men and do what we can to refocus on the horrible state of President Obama’s own Economic Malaise!

Tom Smith for U.S. Senate

Will Pennsylvania U.S. Senate candidate Tom Smith ever get the chance to smoke out do-nothing U.S. Senator Bob Casey in his race to challenge a man who has nothing on his resume’ other than a famous father?

You can’t find anything on Bob Casey’s re-election campaign without a brace of media savvy internet bloodhounds. Casey refuses to come out into the open, like any politician with little track record, and a recognizable name. (How many voters still think they are voting for his father?) Casey continues to hide behind Barack Obama, even while doing anything to avoid endorsing him too much, too often.

He and Congressional REP Allyson Schwartz (See Joe Rooney) are probably sharing the same remote Pocono cabin; waiting for election day to come so they can sneak into their neighborhood polling location and hope for the best … meaning of course, voters who don’t bother looking at how their support of a poor Presidential leader has contributed to the Economic Stagnation we still face after four years of Democrat control over the U.S. Government.

For that reason alone, Bob Casey, Jr. would gladly spend this election cycle hiding under his bed! Add to that his opposition to the Liberal Litmus that is Abortion, his obvious implied stance against Gay Marriage, (Go ahead and try to find any reference to Gay Marriage on his official campaign or Senate websites!) and you have a Liberal Democrat’s biggest nightmare … Supporting a family values candidate that disdains everything a Good Liberal loves all because he has a “D” connected to his father’s name!

The REAL Bob Casey

Fortunately for Pennsylvania Liberals, Casey’s middle name is not “Fracking”!

Tom Smith stands for Ending Out-of-Control Federal Spending, Reducing Job-Killing Regulations, Promoting American Energy to Provide American Jobs, Simplified Tax Codes, and reasonable solutions to Healthcare and the long-term viability of Social Security and Medicare. These are the issues of the day that need discussing. But Bob Casey will not be found this election season discussing anything you care about in the presence of Tom Smith, and that’s a shame for all Pennsylvania voters!

Finally, if you get the chance, read Trudy Rubin’s column on The Real Muslim Movie Outrage in the Philadelphia Inquirer’s Opinion page this Sunday. I rarely agree with Ms. Rubin’s view on domestic politics, but her concise, honest review of the radical Islamic elements working to inflate Muslim tensions is enlightening.

A 1% President?

Posted on September 4, 2012 by Mike Shortall

(Enjoy this re-post both timely and appropriate for this week of the Democratic National Committee convention in Charlotte, NC. Previously posted in January 2012.)

Democratic Party officials announced recently that President Obama will accept his party’s nomination on the last night of their national convention at Bank of America Stadium.

It’s an odd choice, given the recent spate of Occupy Wall Street events originating from the most liberal wings of the Democratic Party. The visuals will not be very comforting to those who believe that the richest 1% of the country set the rules that elevates, protects and perpetuates their wealth, while at the same time oppresses the remaining 99%.

The re-election imagery for OWS’s Presumptive Hero could be a Recipe for Disaster …

Standing in front of a Bank of America backdrop, which BofA paid $100 million just for 20 years worth of naming rights …
In the Home of the Carolina Panthers and their 1% athletes …
Who are owned by Jerry Richardson, former CEO of Flagstar, whose net worth is estimated at $500 million …
In front of Democrat contributors willing to pay up to $1.5 million for the full-blown Premiere Events Package.
Serve over 8.5% Unemployment and the “disappearing middle class”

Hmmmmm …

Well, the good news is that it will be a heck of a lot warmer for the good Occupy Wall Street people in Charlotte in early September than it was on Wall Street this past November. That’s assuming of course that they even bother to show up to drag this particular demographic of the 1% out into the glaring media light.

I’m not holding my breath …

If you too want the Superbox Treatment”, consider your options:

Suzi Emmerling, a spokeswoman for the Charlotte Host Committee, confirmed a Bloomberg report that those deals — presented to Washington lobbyists last month — include an escalating menu of packages starting with the $1 million “presidential” level. Those who buy in will receive a “premier uptown hotel room,” a “platinum events package and “concierge services.” Another $500,000 “Gold Rush” level includes hotel room, credentials and a “premiere events package.”

Myself? I’ll be home watching the Democratic National Convention on TV with my 99% compadres, all the while marveling at how the Democratic 1% get to live it so large!

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.

The missing Political Middle; the loss of American governance

Posted on June 14, 2012 by Mike Shortall

Thank you, Jeb Bush for putting into words what I have been thinking for quite some time! How exactly to express my frustration with a National Leadership that is getting absolutely nothing done. Nothing fair, nothing honest … simply nothing at all.

Washington, D.C. is broken. And while Jeb Bush touched on one aspect of the problem – the severe hyper-partisan divide, my frustration is centered on another cause of this political stagnation.

What has happened to the Moderate Middle in American politics?!?

First off, allow me to lay the basis of my beliefs for this post:

Hyper-partisanism is a problem with BOTH political parties. The Democrats in Washington are just as hyper-partisan as the Republicans. A point which former Florida Governor Jeb Bush acknowledged in his e-mail to The Associated Press this week.
There is no such thing as RINOs (Republican In Name Only) or DINOs (Democrat-INO).

I have a HUGE issue with this blatant misrepresentation, intended to do nothing more than silence all but those on the extreme Right or Left of the political parties. This is also problem relevant to BOTH parties, although RINO seems to get much more play than DINO. In my opinion, Liberal Dems are simply more subtle in their efforts to trample over The Middle.

There was a time when the Democrats included conservative elements, such as those in The South known as Dixie Democrats. There was also a time when there were Liberal Republicans, those who were more liberal on social issues while sticking to the economic virtues extolled by established GOP Conservatives.

Barry Goldwater, a stalwart Conservative Republican in the ’60s and ’70s was more tolerant in his views on social issues. Goldwater even appreciated the need for Liberal viewpoints as a counterweight to conservatism. Anticipating that Somewhere in the Middle the two would meet!

Well, that’s simply not happening anymore …

The true and proper context for these misleading labels – assuming we even need them – is CINO (Conservative In Name Only) or LINO (Liberal-INO)
The Political Middle is the real issue here. Moderate political viewpoints and participation serves as a buffer to the far edges of the political spectrum. And it offers a middle ground for the germination of political compromise.
The problem? The Political Middle has all but disappeared in this country!

I consider myself a Moderate Republican with conservative leanings. I believe in Smaller Government, reduced Government spending, and a strong National Defense. But I also hold more moderate views on Social Issues (e.g. poverty, illegal immigration, LGBT lifestyles, education, and women’s rights). I believe there are times when increased Government spending is both necessary and unavoidable (e.g. economic crises, natural disaster, military conflict, international leadership).

I have a pragmatic view about taxes. I hate like hell paying them. I despise paying more of them. But at times you simply have to cringe and bear it. And yes, some people should pay more if their financial means allow for it, especially when the condition of the fiscal house rivals an EPA Superfund site.

The spread of views I possess apparently classifies me for the title RINO. Not that I care …

Yet this explains exactly how we have gotten to the point in this country where no National Leader will dare make compromise or reach “across the aisle” to work towards solutions to our very real problems.

It led to President Obama’s decision to throw his own debt reduction plan – Simpson-Bowles Commission – under the bus, because – God forbid – we can’t deal with the specter of social benefit reductions at a time when the federal deficit is roiling out of control! Don’t want to get on the wrong side of the Liberal political base!
It led to the recent attempt to recall Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker for nothing more than his desire to reign in state spending and break the cycle of union-politician cronyism.
It led to the rejection by every single Republican Presidential candidate of the very pragmatic suggestion of increasing tax revenues by $1 for every $10 reduction in government expenditures. Because – ya know – you don’t want to piss off the Tea Party or Grover Norquist …

I wholeheartedly agree with Jeb Bush’s statement, “If you could bring to me a majority of people to say that we’re going to have $10 in spending cuts for $1 of revenue enhancement — put me in, coach.”

Dealing in absolutes in politics is a recipe for stagnation. Stagnation in Leadership, stagnation in developing solutions to real problems, stagnation in progress, stagnation in a much-needed, too long developing economic recovery. What you get – what we have now – are both the Left and the Right burrowing down and digging in behind jingoism and intransigence.

So how did we get here?

In essence, the Political Middle has abandoned the political field of play to both political extremes. It’s simple really to understand. Most people disdain or – perhaps more accurately – are apathetic towards politics, especially given its hateful tone in recent years. For those with no hard and fast anchors on the more edgy political and social questions of the day, politics are just nasty, dirty, aggravating … a waste of time better spent elsewhere. In some ways, it’s hard to blame The Middle for its retreat.

On the other hand, those individuals who possess solid political and social issues anchors, see politics as a Means to their Ends. And this is magnified in those who willingly describe themselves as Ultra-Liberals or Right Wing Conservatives. For instance, they recognize the importance of the primary vetting process for weeding out Presidential candidates they perceive as weak on their respective anchor issues. This is why the early primaries in Iowa, South Carolina, New Hampshire receive such out-of-proportion attention. By the time those of us in Pennsylvania get the chance to cast a primary vote, the candidate list has been pared down to one or two candidates. Indeed they will simply be the candidates who could repeat their talking points without making the Left or the Right throw up in their mouths.

This explains how we so often find our National political choices limited to Evil and The Lesser of Two. It explains why many well-qualified individuals will forego involvement in politics and the responsibility of civic leadership. They simply won’t subject themselves to cannibalization by those on the edges of the political spectrum.

Yet few of those who survive this vetting ordeal can be elected without the votes of the Political Middle. And so we see, as soon as the primary process ends, the rush by the annointed candidates to appeal to The Moderate Middle. Their sole objective: to win a general election so they can continue to pander to the only segments who will pay attention to what they do and say afterwards – The Left and The Right.

And so the cycle repeats.

What has happened to the Political Middle?

I guess they think they have better, more important things to do. They do not appreciate that crucial decisions on issues and problems that could potentially affect them for years are being made without their input, long before they – The Middle – even realizes another Election Day is coming. And these decisions are not limited to the social issues that drive stalwart Liberals and Conservatives to action. They include decisions critical to the economy, to education, to fuel and energy prices, the environment, the deficit, and ultimately their futures and the futures of their children.

The Middle’s political apathy is – mildly put – mind-boggling!

So while we wait for America’s Political Middle to wake up to today’s reality, the partisans dig in and refuse to budge, refuse to solve, refuse to govern. The economy continues to falter; the federal deficit continues to grow. We wait for yet another Presidential election where our choices are weak and uninspiring; all the while knowing, nothing’s going to change regardless of the outcome.

Jeb Bush recognizes part of the problem. When will we recognize the solution is a formidable, continuous presence of Moderate political voices?

The evolution of a President?!?

Posted on May 10, 2012 by Mike Shortall

It is refreshing to witness President Obama‘s “evolution” on the issue of gay marriage.

His Darwinesque mutation took only three years!! That’s just the three years he spent in The White House. Should you discount his two years as an active U.S. Senator, his seven years as a State Senator, and his years serving as a community organizer? Perhaps gay marriage was never an important issue to him or a conscious thought that simply never crossed his mind.

Interesting that Evolve has suddenly found its way into President Obama’s skill set at a time when so many Liberals choose the very same word as a snarky suggestion to Conservatives who come down on the wrong side of social issues. Apparently Conservatives weren’t the only ones needing to “evolve”.

Well, at least we can take comfort in knowing this was not a politically motivated “coming out”! It’s not like he …

wanted to avert all eyes from the Economy during a re-election year, or
needed a Vice President and Press Secretary to stick their heads up out of the foxhole first to see if it was safe, or
was headed for a HUGE George Clooney-organized Hollywood fund-raiser …

George Clooney‘s Obama fundraiser …. oops!

Oh, c’mon … That couldn’t be the reason why this was announced now … in a re-election year … on the eve of a night with deep pocketed, gay and gay-supporting Hollywood types … Could it?!? Nah ….

The best part is that our Brave, Forward-Thinking, Ground-Breaking President has once again given the objective media chills … be they up Chris Matthews leg or down Robin Roberts back!

I’m just thankful this evolution was totally the result of careful introspection and the need to lead the Nation in the right direction, completely devoid of any political motivation whatsoever!

Next up … Fixing the Economy!!

Now I can get back to figuring out how to help that Nigerian Finance Minister rescue that £150 million …

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!

“Game Change”, HBO’s new Democrat-umentary

Posted on March 13, 2012 by Mike Shortall

democratumentary – (def) a media production presented as a “documentary” when it really only addresses issues and events from a subjective point-of-view favorable to the Democratic Party.

I try not to be a cynic. I really do. But when it comes to politics, I am no longer a match for the machinations of those on the National political stage. And when they are joined by willing sycophants in the media and entertainment industries, it’s about all I can stand without blowing a Cranky Man gasket!

My latest migraine comes courtesy of the abomination made by HBO of the best-selling book Game Change, authored by John Heileman and Mark Halperin following the 2008 presidential election.

If you happened to watch this HBO democratumentary this past Sunday (I didn’t, and won’t; and why will become obvious to you as you read this.), please take a moment and read my review of the book Game Change, written for this blog back in January 2011. And as you read my review, see if you can identify what was left out of the HBO democratumentary.

(Cranky hums the Jeopardy theme song as he patiently waits for his readers as they enjoy another brilliant Cranky Man piece.)

That’s right! Not a single mention, character casting, or on-screen appearance of any significance by any Democrat that participated in that 2008 presidential election! Not a single one …

This despite that the dominant theme of Game Change – the book – was the Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama battle in the Democrat primaries, and the harrowing details of John Edwards’ disastrous campaign and failing marriage!

Not a peep …

I had seen several of the teasers and promos for the HBO democratumentary, and kept wondering where was the Clinton-Obama characters? What about the confrontation between the two on the tarmac of Reagan National Airport? Where was the controversy over the Clinton campaign’s speculation on past drug use by Obama and rumors of his Muslim roots? Where was the grab-you-by-the-collar stories of John and Elizabeth Edwards’ constant fights and dysfunction?

Nowhere, that’s where …

It’s gets even uglier – as in Rielle ugly – when you peruse the political donations of the cast and production executives that worked on the democratumentary.

Tom Hanks, producer, well over $100, 000 to the DNC since 1994, $36,500 to liberal causes like SEN Al Franken’s Midwest Values. Republicans: not a dime

Ed Harris (SEN John McCain), $9500 to Democratic candidates, $11,975 to liberal special-interest groups like MoveOn.org. Republicans: squat, nada, nil

Woody Harrelson (Steve Schmidt, McCain-Palin chief strategist), $4,300 to Democratic candidates, $3,500 to liberal causes like GreenVote. Republicans: zip, zero, zilch

Jay Roach, director/co-executive producer, $15,800 to Democrats; Republicans? You should be recognizing the theme by now!

Julianne Moore (Sarah Palin), $2,250 to Democrats, $7,500 to DNC, Democratic White House Victory Fund and special-interest groups. Republicans: Everybody join in!

Danny Strong, co-executive producer, $2500 to Obama Victory Fund. Republicans: a big wet willie

You don’t need someone to draw the picture for you. It’s just sitting there plain as day.

You would think the movie-based-on-the-book would have at least addressed in some way the REAL Game Change in 2008, Barack Obama as the first African-American President. But that story had to be ignored, to avoid the ugliness of the Democrats’ 2008 campaign and to maximize the spotlight on the Republican-Sarah Palin debacle.

Afterall, you never want to beat the horse you’re betting on.

(Shout out to reader Mark D for tipping me to the donation information.)

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.

A 1% President?

Posted on January 18, 2012 by Mike Shortall

Democratic Party officials announced recently that President Obama will accept his party’s nomination on the last night of their national convention at Bank of America Stadium.

The re-election imagery for OWS’s Presumptive Hero could be a Recipe for Disaster …

Standing in front of a Bank of America backdrop, which BofA paid $100 million just for 20 years worth of naming rights …
In the Home of the Carolina Panthers and their 1% athletes …
Who are owned by Jerry Richardson, former CEO of Flagstar, whose net worth is estimated at $500 million …
In front of Democrat contributors willing to pay up to $1.5 million for the full-blown Premiere Events Package.
Serve over 8.5% Unemployment and the “disappearing middle class”

Hmmmmm …

I’m not holding my breath …

If you too want the Superbox Treatment”, consider your options:

Suzi Emmerling, a spokeswoman for the Charlotte Host Committee, confirmed a Bloomberg report that those deals — presented to Washington lobbyists last month — include an escalating menu of packages starting with the $1 million “presidential” level. Those who buy in will receive a “premier uptown hotel room,” a “platinum events package and “concierge services.” Another $500,000 “Gold Rush” level includes hotel room, credentials and a “premiere events package.”

Myself? I’ll be home watching the Democratic National Convention on TV with my 99% compadres, all the while marveling at how the Democratic 1% get to live it so large!

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?