Take Up Our Quarrel With the Foe

Every year in November, we hear common phrases with regard to Remembrance Day:

"Lest we forget"; "We will remember them"; "Never again".

Every year I wonder how well we as a culture and generation have thought this out.

Remember Them
Certainly, we should "remember them". The human factor can not be ignored. An astounding number of people died, were maimed, were psychologically and emotionally scarred, were bereft of husbands, fathers, sons. These were real people, the survivors of whom had to deal with the effects long after the wars were over. These were lovers and loved ones, whose bonds were destroyed or damaged. In some cases, these wounds are very fresh - Canadian soldiers have fallen even in the past weeks.

Some of these were my own ancestors: my grandparents, great-uncles. The human toll is not lost on me. I see and hear the pain when they talk about the war, fallen comrades, fallen siblings. They do not want to recall or retell these memories. But how soon we would forget, if they did not.

Lest We Forget
Yes we care about and support veterans. Yes, we sympathize with the bereaved and the grieving. But why was their sacrifice noble? Why was it necessary? Read this anecdote from the Corner by Hans von Spakovsky on the anniversary of the "fall" of the Berlin Wall. Shortly after the wall was torn down, he went from West Berlin to East Berlin:

West Berlin was full of bright colors, from shop windows and pennants flying on buildings, to the clothes worn by Berliners on the street. All of the buildings in East Berlin were gray and dirty. Some were still unoccupied and had bullet holes; they had never been repaired or renovated after the end of World War II. West Berlin was full of bright, sparkling vistas and shops filled with consumer goods of all kinds. East Berlin was dark and dingy. The few shops were empty of the everyday necessities and luxuries that give us the quality of life we enjoy. All of the differences between the liberty and prosperity of the free West and the prison conditions and poverty that characterized life behind the Iron Curtain were easy to see.

So easily we say that our fallen fought for freedom; so easily we still forget what this means. Freedom really is at stake. Freedom really is never free. Yet we acquiesce to encroachment on our real freedoms. Instead of freedom of religion, we would prefer freedom from religion. Instead of freedom of speech, we would prefer freedom from free and unregulated speech. These freedoms are the very things won for us by shed blood and sacrifice. Our fallen considered freedoms such as these worth fighting for. They still do - over in Afghanistan, soldiers from Canada, Britain, America, and other countries are doing hard work that they deem worthwhile.

Never Again
John Philpot Curran said,

"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."

Or, as Thomas Jefferson famously paraphrased,

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

Do we even think about the third stanza of John McCrae's famous poem?

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

There is a foe. There is a quarrel. Vigilance is necessary. If we want to retain our freedom, we have a fight on our hands. Let us not allow our hard-won freedoms to be encroached upon, denied, or abridged in ways big or small.

So let us disregard this pacifist hippie nonsense of "Why can't we all just get along?" and "no more war". If that's the message of "Never again", you can count me out. It denies and denigrates the sacrifice of those who fought for something real and worthwhile. Let us be clear: refusal to fight is no way to prevent war. It is a sure way to surrender our freedom.

The failing hands did not throw a white flag of surrender or regret. They had a foe, and they had a quarrel with the foe. They charged us to take up this quarrel, to hold the torch high, and not to break faith with them. Let us indeed do what we can to prevent full-scale war; but let us never fail to hold high the torch of freedom, at whatever cost.

Levant and Steyn Before Parliamentary Committee

Update: Welcome, SteynOnline readers!

Ezra Levant posts some great video of his and Mark Steyn's testimony before the Standing Committee for Justice and Human Rights, which is reviewing the Canadian Human Rights Act and particularly Section 13 of that act.

What stood out to me was a response of MP Joe Comartin (NDP, Windsor-Tecumseh, ON) to Mark Steyn. Comartin asks Levant and Steyn whether they'd be willing to appear before the committee in the future, and whether they could supply documentation for some of the allegations they had made about the actions of the CHRC. Levant agrees, and notes how surprised he was when he realized that these were not merely allegations or conspiracy theories, but that they were really happening. Steyn also indicates that he couldn't believe the actions of the CHRC and the CHRT. Then follows this exchange:

Steyn: ...I'm not going to let this go. I don't believe secret trials have any place in this country, except in the most extreme national security circumstances - and even then that's debatable. But they certainly have no place over so-called hate speech or pre-crime. It's a disgrace, it shames this country, and you as the parliamentary oversight for the commission and the tribunal should do something about that.

Comartin: Well I get to decide what we do - what I do. This is a parliamentary [sic], Mr. Steyn.

Watch the clip starting at about 4:40:



Is it me or is Comartin defensive and uncomfortable with Steyn's direct challenge to the Committee? He laughs, and then retreats to the elementary school comeback: "You're not the boss of me." It seems somewhat arrogant, even. Not, "It's our job to decide that", but "I get to decide what we do." To take another elementary school line, He's the king of the castle, and that dirty rascal Steyn shouldn't dare to suggest a course of action. To his credit he catches his ego-centric response mid-takeoff and rephrases, but I think it betrays what lies beneath. It's almost as if he knows what's right, but doesn't want to be told to do it. Would he respond the same way to a concerned constituent - who is the boss of him?

For the most part, I didn't find Comartin's questions malicious or evasive. He did toss a lame softball to the effect that allowing the publication of Mein Kampf did not prevent Hitler from carrying out the Holocaust. Steyn - and Levant, later - hit this one out of the park with ease. But he did also express a desire to hear from Levant and Steyn again. That's a good thing. The more opportunity Steyn and Levant have to shred the bad arguments for Section 13, the better.

Potato Monopoly

A fellow church member with a family farm is being told that he can only sell his potatoes through Peak of the Market, which bills itself as a "grower-owned vegetable supplier". He says "Now they're telling me I can't even sell potatoes in a shack on my own property."

A few telling parts of a Winnipeg Free Press article:

Under Manitoba regulations, all potato farmers must sell their spuds through Peak of the Market, which charges a small levy in exchange for the ability to pool, brand and market their produce.

So the Manitoba government has apparently legislated mandatory cooperation with Peak of the Market. This sounds like another Canadian Wheat Board. The over-regulation of government becomes an unjustifiable restriction on the liberty of the free citizen.

"They told me nobody is allowed to sell potatoes unless they are a registered grower through Peak of the Market."

Great strategy: force them to register in order to sell food.

Peak of the Market is planning to come up with new regulations next year to formalize the way small producers sell to farmers' markets.

So who is coming up with regulations to restrict free trade of free citizens? A non-governmental, unelected, perhaps unaccountable organization?

Small producers and organic vegetable growers have no reason to be afraid of taking their product to Peak of the Market, added Debora Durnin-Richards, the acting director of boards, commissions and legislation for Manitoba's Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives.

Let me see if I understand this: the onus is on me to provide a reason why my freedom should not be restricted? Backwards. And I should like it because Durnin-Richards says so? Even if they back off such regulation or make an exception, I suppose I should thank the government for graciously allowing me to do what I should be free to do in the first place, right?

Farmers who want to grow on a small scale and cut out the middleman have no interest in vegetable marketing boards, added the spokeswoman for Winnipeg's largest farmers' market.

This stinks of government overreach, overregulation and unjustifiable restriction of the liberty of a citizen. It also does not look good on Peak of the Market, which likes to portray itself as friendly to local farmers.

Medefind: 10 Questions

In the latest (June 2009) issue of Comment magazine from Cardus, Jedd Medefind - a former Special Assistant to George W. Bush - answers the following question from a reader:

... My friends and I often wonder how to hear over the rhetoric and angry name-calling that often surfaces in political discussions... What would you say we should think about when we want to interact with our government?

In response, Medefind lays out 10 questions he has used to guide his political choices:

1. Is my political stance a reflection of the heart of God or merely a product of my own culture?
2. Do the goals I seek to achieve flow from a vision for common grace, or merely the narrow interests of my own group?
3. Will the tactics I use make it more difficult to influence hearts and lives positively in the long run?
4. Is government really the best way to address this issue?
5. Am I willing to be unpopular?
6. Do I sincerely love my political "enemies" as Jesus taught, not just in theory but in action?
7. Am I falling off the other side of the horse?
8. Is my political stance reflected in my private choices?
9. Have I embraced disciplines that will sustain me for the long haul?
10. What is my ultimate goal?

Medefind fleshes these questions out in more detail in the magazine article. Great questions to consider for our Christian political activity.

Ezra Levant: Shakedown

I attended a fund-raiser for Rod Bruinooge's EDA at which Ezra Levant was the keynote speaker. Somehow the lady at the event registration desk mistook me for Levant. I told her that Ezra is taller than me and a much better speaker. Today the folks at Bruinooge's office were kind enough to send me this proof of the former:



I just finished reading the pictured (and signed!) copy of his new book, Shakedown. It is a great survey of the whole topic of HRCs. Levant's forceful criticism of HRC abuses and vigorous defense of basic freedoms is easy to read and contagious. A lot of the book's material is familiar to those of us who follow his blog closely. But there are several cases that never featured on the blog, and which serve to bolster the argument he has made all along. As a matter of fact, they just make one even more disgusted at the incredible corruption of the HRCs and their obvious incompatibility with democratic freedoms.

Highly recommended. This book has to be read by many Canadians. The word has to get out that the HRCs are far from the defenders of rights - quite to the contrary, they're tramplers of those rights.

Any Argument Will Do

Federal Science and Technology Minister Gary Goodyear came under attack recently when a Globe and Mail reporter suggested that he does not believe in evolution. Yes, it was an attack. In a National Post article today, David Asper writes:

A couple of days ago, federal Minister of Science and Technology Gary Goodyear gave a brief interview to a reporter from The Globe and Mail that was supposedly about reductions in funding for scientific research. However, the entire Globe story allegedly chronicling the interview actually contained only a few sentences dealing with those cuts; one in which the Minister defended the actions being taken by the government, and another whereby he suggested that there needs to be a focus on commercialization of research. The bulk of what Globe readers got was a set of sensationalized non-sequiturs under the headline "Science minister won't confirm belief in evolution."

Asper goes on to describe a pattern of attacks on Christian Conservatives.

In July, I noted that Charles Johnson, whose blog Little Green Footballs I have read and appreciated for several years, had begun to attack young-earth creationists. Since then, it has gotten worse, to the point that many of his readers have given up on him. The problem is not that he disagrees with young-earth creationists. It is the aggressive campaign to maintain the atheist/evolutionist monopoly in education. It is the tireless dredging up of misleading and false information. And, as in this case, it is the acceptance of fallacious arguments.

Johnson affirms arguments at a blog by Phil Plait as "some good points." Here is an excerpt of Plait's post that Johnson chose to highlight:

But tell me, how would you feel if the head of your federal science department told you he believes the Earth is flat? Or the Sun revolves around the Earth? Or that he thinks the sky is a great crystal sphere, and he lies awake at night worried that the Voyager probes will smash it and let all our air out?

Those beliefs have just as much basis as young Earth creationism: they are faith-based only, and have no evidence for them, and about a billion solid pieces of evidence against them.

This is a disingenuous argument that has all the impressiveness of demolishing a straw man. Plait declares that believing that the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around the earth have as much basis as young-earth creationism. But what's the difference? Science - at least as it used to be understood. It can be observed - here and now - that the earth is round and that it revolves around the sun. Molecules-to-man evolution, on the other hand, can not be observed. It can not be scientifically proven. So you have to build a framework into which the evidence fits, and then believe it. Johnson's faith is as blind and his approach as religious as those religious fanatics he believes he is opposing.

I find it interesting to read all the references to "believing in evolution" and "believing in creationism". Bible-believing Christians should never accept the latter. In the Apostle's Creed, we confess that we believe "a holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting." We believe these things, but we don't believe in them. We believe in God. Similarly, young-earth creationism is not a religion or an object of faith. It's a belief grounded in the Word of God, and consistent with scientific evidence.

After Section 13

Much attention has been given in Canada - and across the world - to the systemic problems with Human Rights Commissions and their outrageous decisions. In particular, the sections of the federal and provincial Human Rights Acts that deal with speech and communication "likely to expose a person or person to hatred or contempt" have come under the spotlight. Ever since Ezra Levant went public with his fight against the Alberta Human Rights Commission a little more than one year ago, a movement to abolish Section 13 and its provincial counterpart has been gaining momentum. Canada itself has been exposed to ridicule for allowing such Orwellian courts and laws to thrive in the True North strong and free.

Human Rights Acts and Commissions are certainly the most dangerous and most immediate enemies to the freedom of speech of Canadians, particularly Christian Canadians. But what would happen if the movement to abolish the Acts and/or Commissions achieved its goal? Would the problem be solved? Could Christians sit back without fear of being silenced?

Not at all. Section 13 and its administrators are but the tip of the iceberg, a symptom of a problem that is much more widespread. In Canada, freedom of speech is under attack in other ways. Another government agency, the CRTC, has long been actively preventing Christian TV and radio programs and channels from being established.

Examples abound in public schools and universities. Chris Kempling, a counsellor in the B.C. public school system was disciplined by the B.C. College of Teachers for public criticism, on his own time, of curriculum that promoted homosexual behaviour. (The B.C. College of Teachers recently withdrew a subsequent complaint.) In February 2006, the Cape Breton University Human Rights office accepted a complaint against professor David Mullan for a letter regarding homosexuality that he sent to his local Anglican archbishop and a subsequent discussion of the letter with a student. More recently, it was reported in November that Queens University in Kingston had hired several students whose role includes monitoring private conversations and intervening when issues of "social justice" are being discussed. (This program has since been dropped.) And in the last few weeks, the University of Calgary pressed charges of trespassing against pro-life students who took part in the Genocide Awareness Project. It is particularly distressing - though not altogether surprising - to see freedom of speech especially under attack at institutions that purportedly promote open dialogue and free debate.

American colleges are not much different. Many of them have "speech codes" effectively prohibiting the expression of certain opinions. But at least in the case of our neighbours to the south, the right of free speech is protected under the First Amendment.

It's not that simple. Take John McCain, who recently ran for President. McCain was a supporter of McCain/Feingold, and obviously had no qualms about limiting freedom of speech when it was politically expedient.

And what of Barack Obama, the new President? There is evidence that Obama and his campaign used legal and organizational tactics to silence his critics. It didn't take long after his inauguration for Obama to suggest that Americans should stop listening to Rush Limbaugh, a popular conservative radio talk show host. And Obama's policy aligns closely with the Fairness Doctrine, which practically would give the government power to push certain broadcasters out of business.

True human rights are granted by God, and are therefore outside the jurisdiction of our governments. They are the positive aspect of the negative commandments. When God commands us not to bear false witness, he also declares the inalienable right and duty to bear true witness - to freely speak the truth. Christians are further called to speak the truth in love.

But often the truth - even when spoken in love - is confrontational and unpleasant to those who hear it. Their natural reaction is to prevent themselves from hearing it or to prevent others from speaking it. That is why we see many different efforts in our free societies to silence speech that is intolerable or inconvenient. In practice, it is often Christians who are being muzzled, and often at the hands of "human rights" Commissions. But we must fight these efforts regardless of their form or target; otherwise our freedom too will be in jeopardy. Let us encourage our society and government to uphold the God-given right and duty to speak the truth in love.

And So It Begins

Less than a week into his term as President, Barack Obama has come out in full support of the abortion industry. While calling for "common ground" in the debate, he praised the Roe vs. Wade decision on its 36th anniversary, and signed an executive order revoking the Mexico City Policy, allowing US funds to be used by overseas organizations involved in abortion or its promotion.

I am amazed at the number of Christians who aligned themselves with Obama during the election campaign. From my vantage point, it seems many still do. During the election campaign, one commentator pointed out the bizarre fact that there were a fair number of people who supported Obama but actually hoped that he wouldn't keep his promises. Hope and change for them meant that they hoped Obama would change his own policies. Perhaps many of these Christians fall in this category.

But the fact is, Obama's legacy should have spoken for itself. At one point on the campaign trail, Obama indicated that he wouldn't want his daughters punished with pregnancy and motherhood if they made a mistake.



Then there was the Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection bill. Obama insisted on amendments to the bill to align it to a very similar federal bill. Even the large pro-abortion group NARAL did not ultimately oppose the federal bill. But when the bill, amendments included, came up in Illinois, Obama voted against it. These were two of many more clear indications of Obama's position on abortion. He was very much beyond the mainstream on the issue.

I have heard of far-left supporters of Obama who are already feeling disenfranchised by the fact that Obama is carrying on with some Bush-era policies and personnel. There were clear signs that he shared (some of) their views. Their hope for change has been disappointed.

Christians have no such excuse. Obama is keeping his promises on the abortion issue. If we are surprised, it is due to naivety or ignorance. In any case we should do away with the idea that this is a man with whom we can or should align ourselves.

Christ Jesus told Pontius Pilate:

You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above.(John 19:11)

Paul exhorted Timothy:

I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone — for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.(1 Timothy 2:1-2)

And David showed restraint out of respect for God when he had two chances to kill a man bent on his death, but who was also the king.

We must likewise show respect for those God has put in authority. We must pray for them, perhaps especially when their actions show them to be ungodly. Yet there is no contradiction when we speak of a loyal opposition. We should not ignore or hide from the truth. Our prophetic task with respect to those in authority, as was Elijah's, is sometimes to respectfully and boldly oppose them.

Breitbart: Hollywood Celebrities Not Citizens, But Serfs

Andrew Breitbart rightly takes Hollywood celebrities to task for their on-again-off-again take on patriotism and citizenship, after several of them put out a celebrity-filled "Presidential Pledge" video. I Pledge to Ridicule Celebrities Who Refuse to Recognize We Are At War With People Who Want to Kill Them, Too:

This video illustrates that the current celebrity class are not citizens but serfs. They need a leader to put their minds in the right place to do the right thing. They are not heroic individualists seeking to extend America’s promise but conformists who chose to sit out and complain during the tough years in order to ensure their guy got in the next go-around.

Read the whole article. Breitbart's final sentiment is not the right approach, but his criticism are bang-on.

Another Political Union

Some time before Sunday, all of Canada's postal workers sat down and, after careful debate, hammered out a mutually agreeable and acceptable statement regarding the crisis in Israel and Gaza. Wait. No they didn't. Maybe they took a vote? I doubt it.

On behalf of the 56,000 members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, I am writing to demand that the Canadian government condemn the military assault on the people of Gaza that the state of Israel commenced on December 26th, 2008.

That's right. Denis Lemelin, National President of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW), took it upon himself to speak on behalf of 56,000 union members. Guess what? They all agree that

• Israel's largely pinpoint destruction of Hamas weapons and strongholds is a "military assault on the people of Gaza"
• Israel was the party that started the fight "on December 26, 2008"
• Israel's operations are a "siege on Gaza"
• "the root cause of the violence" is "Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories"
• Israel's current actions are totally out of proportion with any notion of self-defense."

(Incidentally, the CUPW president fails to write the name 'Hamas' even once in his letter. Even if he had, I'm sure his spell-checker would have corrected it to 'oppressed freedom-fighters'. You can read the full letter here.)

This is the consensus of 56,000 out of 56,000 Canadian postal workers. Or that is what Mr. Lemelin would have us believe. Perhaps it's a healthy 42,000 out of 56,000. Three out of four is a solid majority. Perhaps it's 40,000. Perhaps it's 28,001 - a slight 50-percent-plus-one majority, but a majority nonetheless. Perhaps it's 14,000 of 56,000. (One can only hope.)

But what does it matter?

Last month I wrote about how today's unions have long lost sight of their original cause and purpose. One aspect of this overreach was political action:

Today's unions are political. It can be argued that it is for the good of the workers to support a political party that is likely to be sympathetic to union demands. But do political contributions represent the diversity of political support among the union members? And what can be said, for instance, of the CAW boss Buzz Hargrove's official letter to Prime Minister Harper taking a political stand during the Israel-Lebanon crisis of 2006? Did his recommendations represent the majority view of union members? Even if it did, what business is it of CAW's to make political pronouncements?

Regardless of what numerator you throw on top of 56,000, by what authority does the CUPW or its executive "demand [emphasis mine -ed.] that the Canadian government condemn the military assault on the people of Gaza"? What business does it have to "strongly urge the Canadian government to condemn the serious violations of humanitarian and international law by the state of Israel"?

It's bad enough that the CUPW pretends to speak on behalf of all its members on controversial political issues. But it says something about the audacity of today's unions when they are happy to abuse their power and influence in domains in which they have no business.

Emerson: New York Times a Foreign Agent for Hamas

Steve Emerson pulls no punches in this indictment of the New York Times, which is no longer even pretending to be fair and balanced. The Hamas propaganda machine is world-class, but who even needs it when the world's biggest newsrooms are cheerleading for you? Emerson: Why Does The New York Times Love Hamas?

In the past week, the Fourth Estate’s Hamas cheerleaders have stripped away any pretense of being honest or neutral, with The New York Times continuing to take the side of the terrorist group in one of the most shameful journalistic episodes I have ever seen. In following The Times' coverage for the past six months and checking external sources of information, one can see a clear pattern of propagandistic reporting favoring Hamas that selectively suppressed or willfully misrepresented information.

Meanwhile, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have realized that if the truth is going to get out, it's not going to be the mainstream media's fault. So it is using the power of the internet to counter the anti-Israel spin. The IDF's website features official statistics and releases, and many YouTube videos showing Hamas firing rockets from hospitals, mosques, and schools.

Glick: The Real War Crimes

Here's an entirely different take on the Hamas-Israeli war from Caroline Glick. As a matter of fact, it's a breath of fresh air when compared with the anti-Israel mainstream media. A Mideast Glick Check:

What is interesting about this latest round of fighting is that the world paid little attention to what was going on when it was only Hamas attacking Israel. People only started paying attention when Israel’s government said enough is enough and started defending its territory and citizens.

Elsewhere, Ezra Levant tackles our national and local media -The Canadian Left vs. Israel:

But I do not want the Conservatives to have a monopoly on pro-Israel sentiments. I think every Canadian party ought to be pro-Israel, because Israel mirrors our own democratic, liberal values in a very undemocratic, illiberal part of the world. Their fight against Islamic terrorism predates ours; they're merely the front line. We could be in the same violent mess as them in 20 years -- and Europe could be in 10 years.

CBC Neutral on Obama

Yeah right. Down at CBC Radio 2, they're positively giddy about his president-electness.

“One of the best way to know Canada is through the depth and breadth of our artistic expression,” says Denise Donlon, Executive Director, CBC Radio. “We're excited about the new President and we want him to be excited about us, so we're asking our audience to help compile the list of our most definitive Canadian songs!”

They devoted a lot of the day to this "Obama-rama" (their word). But I'm sure they'll do a Bush Farewell Extravaganza too, right?

Rumours of Racism's Death are Greatly Exaggerated

Shortly after the U.S. federal election in November, I wrote:

But it's the old race card in a new suit, another "heads I win, tails you lose" tactic. If Obama wins, race is not an issue - it's about the merits of his person and position, and the lack thereof in the case of his opponent. If he loses, it's because of race - not about merits.

Over at Uncommon Knowledge - where Peter Robinson conducts very interesting interviews - I stumbled across an interview with Shelby Steele, where he explains the reason for Obama's popular appeal:

But there is an inherent contradiction in all of this when whites, especially today's younger generation, proudly support Obama for his post-racialism, they unwittingly embrace race as their primary motivation.

Everywhere I went on my book tour with regard to this book, young people would come up, "We're beyond your generation. We're going to vote for Obama," and so forth. "Don't you think that we, we grew up differently than you did." No, you didn't. You did not. You are now obsessed with race. Race is the only thing that's driving your interest in Barack Obama. You couldn't even tell me what his policies are. You're never critical to him in any way. If you were free of race, you would not judge him culturally. You would judge him politically. You'd look at his position on social security, on all these mundane, boilerplate issues that presidents actually have to deal with, his economic policies. You never want to see that. You are consumed by race.

The whole thing is worth watching, but this exchange begins at 15:35.

Unions, Productivity, and the Automakers Crisis

Workers' unions came about because of terrible working conditions and employers who mistreated their employees. Employers were abusing their power and their workers. Unions have been responsible, at least in part, for improving working standards and conditions.

But the pendulum has long since swung to the other side. It is now the unions that are abusing their power and the workers they claim to represent. There are many things that can be said about the actions and effects of today's unions, but let the following non-exhaustive list suffice:

• Today's unions do not balance the needs of workers with the needs of employers and managers. Workers are best served when they are fairly treated and compensated, but also when such treatment and compensation does not threaten the profitability and stability of their jobs and livelihood - the company for which they work. Many recent union "wins" are thus actually losses. Unions are too opposed to management and ownership to seek the common good.
• Today's unions make financial sense for those at the top, but not necessarily for those at the bottom. Union bosses are very well compensated, but does the average worker recover the losses incurred after strike pay runs out during a lengthy strike?
• Today's unions are political. It can be argued that it is for the good of the workers to support a political party that is likely to be sympathetic to union demands. But do political contributions represent the diversity of political support among the union members? And what can be said, for instance, of the CAW boss Buzz Hargrove's official letter to Prime Minister Harper taking a political stand during the Israel-Lebanon crisis of 2006? Did his recommendations represent the majority view of union members? Even if it did, what business is it of CAW's to make political pronouncements?
• Today's unions actually discourage creativity, efficiency, productivity.

This last one likely has a lot more to do with today's Big Three auto crisis than any one is letting on. It's a systemic problem, and any real solution to the automaker crisis must deal with it. More in this great read at Pajamas Media - Rand Simberg: Detroit’s Downturn: It’s the Productivity, Stupid. Here's an excerpt, but read the whole thing - there are some mind-boggling and telling examples of the union mentality.

But almost all of the discussion, when it comes to UAW culpability, has been on wages. The even larger issue, though, is the elephant in the room that seemingly no one discusses, even when given a political opportunity... And it’s not like people are unaware of it, at least people familiar with the industry. The issue isn’t wages — though those are a problem — so much as work rules. UAW work rules, which have evolved over the many decades since the passage of the Wagner Act, are the biggest reason that General Motors is uncompetitive with its non-union American counterparts.

What are work rules? They are agreements negotiated in the contract between management and the union covering how the employees are to be classified, how many breaks they get, how much time off they get, who can do which jobs, how discipline is to be enforced, etc. The goal of the rules is not to enhance productivity or production quality. It is to provide opportunities for featherbedding, increase numbers of (overpaid) jobs for union workers, and minimize how much they have to actually work. This is important because it’s at least in theory possible that the industry could be making money even at current wages, if they could be provided with the flexibility to increase worker productivity.

Fighting the War on Life Issues

At a recent Campaign Life Coalition luncheon, Former Liberal MP Tom Wappel - well-known for his pro-life stance - took the Roman Catholic Church to task for its lack of support for him and others fighting the war on the life issues. But his criticism was constructive and offered 13 specific recommendations to give that support.

These are suggestions from someone who spent 20 years in federal parliament, who was a member of the Pro-Life Caucus, who understands the fight from that perspective. So these recommendations are instructive for all who want to return to a respect for life. From LifeSiteNews, Tom Wappel's 13 Recommendations for Catholic Clergy and Bishops:

Number 13 - Engage the congregation to think about there [sic] faith... how can you speak in favor of the freedom to "choose" for example, or same-sex marriage or some type of euthanasia?

Number 12 - have educational meetings at the Church, I would recommend, once a month. Invite speakers on issues such as abortion, marriage, euthanasia, and publicize it well.

Number 11 - invite the local Member of Parliament, the local Member of Provincial Parliament and the councillor to these meetings.

Number 10 - Encourage the Catholic Women's League and the Knights of Columbus, if you have them in your parish, to seek meetings with the local MP's about the life issues and have them report back on those meetings.

Number 9 - Encourage parishioners to be engaged in public policy debate. Encourage them to write to their representatives when they run across issues that they feel strongly about - express their opinions.

Number 8 - Talk to the principals and staff, if you are allowed to do so, at all the Catholic schools in your parish and walk them through the issues - as you do the parishioners.

Number 7 - engage with the students at all levels about the life issues. It is never too young, in my opinion, to talk about a respect for life.

Number 6 - encourage your fellow priests and pastors of other denominations,

Number 5 - encourage and, indeed, insist that the Bishops institute these kinds of practices nation-wide in an organized manner...

Number 4 - ... the CCCB should meet with the representatives of the Parliamentary pro-life caucus,

Number 3 - provide your parishioners, at all times, and in particular during an election campaign, with specific sources where they can accumulate information about candidates.

Number 2 - Advise parishioners on the exact positions of the candidates on the life issues.

Number 1 - ...the entire congregation [should] pray to God that God would rekindle the fire of faith of those whose faith has been extinguished, stoke the smoldering embers of faith of those who are losing their faith and fan the flames of those whose faith is strong...

The Bush Legacy

I've argued often that history will judge George W. Bush much kindlier than current popular opinion. The typical rap is that he is an unintelligent, far-right ultraconservative, selfish theocon. These allegations are nearly all false, and are less supported by knowledge and fact than by emotions and intense ideological opposition. Bush is well-read and his Texas drawl hides his intelligence. He is not far-right or very conservative - in fact, his big-government approach was disappointingly centrist. His demeanour betrays self-confidence, but not selfishness. And he is less theocon than say, George Washington, or any of the Fathers of the U.S. Constitution - read a few of Bill Federer's American Minute pieces for a picture of this. But these things will come out with time.

However, as Victor David Hanson writes at the corner, it's not taking much time at all: Bush Through the Obama Prism.

Obama's victory (predicated on painting Bush as a Hoover/Nixon redux), more so even than perhaps a John McCain's, may do more for Bush's reputation that anyone ever imagined. And the Mumbai mess (over there, not here) will only empasize all this, as an array of old 9/11-era experts who used to warn us about radical Islam, then, in the subsequent respite at home, screamed that Bush fabricated a war against terror against bogeymen, and now in their third manifestation are paraded once more out to warn us about?—why, yes, radical Islam!

A Chilling Display of Tolerance

Despite overwhelmingly supporting Barack Obama in last week's election, Californians also voted 'Yes' on Proposition 8, a measure legally defining marriage in California as "marriage between a man and a woman."

The gay lobby has framed its fight in terms of victimhood, equal rights, and tolerance. But they've always been about bullying - shouting down their opponents and using the race and bigotry cards. And, of course, the battering ram of judicial activism, quite unlike the democratic process used by Yes on 8.

That's at the best of times. Here's what happens when democracy gets in the way of their plan: Crazy lefties attack old lady at No on 8 protest.

Thoughts on the US Presidential Election

A few thoughts on the US presidential election won by Barack Obama. There was no shortage of platitude or inflated rhetoric with regard to Obama the candidate. His election has occasion for yet more sensationalism. I find much of it disappointing, and worse, dishonest.

Exhibit A is the issue of race and racism. Racism has been declared dead or at least dying, the media tells us, now that a black man is to be the President of the United States. But it's the old race card in a new suit, another "heads I win, tails you lose" tactic. If Obama wins, race is not an issue - it's about the merits of his person and position, and the lack thereof in the case of his opponent. If he loses, it's because of race - not about merits. So race was very much a part of the campaign and the election - the trump card of race was ready for use if it was needed. More on this from Mark Levin at the Corner:

Let's not fool ourselves. If Barack Obama had been a conservative Republican (a la Lynn Swann, Michael Steele or Ken Blackwell) the response to his election would not the same as it is today. Before the election, the liberal and media commentariat were putting out different arguments for an Obama election — including that this was not an election about race if he won or it was an election about race if he lost. But now that he has won, I am hearing this is victory against racism. But I didn't think modern America racist. Of course, there are individuals and pockets that are. But that's different. I don't remember the same tests, such as they are, being applied to the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. I understand that's different than a national election. However, it simply cannot be denied that there is a double standard as applies to liberals and conservatives regardless of race or gender. Indeed, if Hillary Clinton had been elected president, we would be hearing similar words of celebration; but if Sarah Palin had been elected vice president, we would be hearing very nasty things, as we have since she was nominated.

Exhibit B is the deconstruction of the two campaigns: Obama's campaign was brilliant and largely free of mistakes, while McCain's campaign was weak and error-ridden. I concur that McCain did not run a strong campaign, and that there were too many mistakes. But I find statements about Obama's brilliant win somewhat dishonest. McCain needed a strong campaign to win. First, he was running for the same party as Bush. But he was up against another, much larger, obstacle that Obama did not have to face. Mark Hemingway, also at the Corner:

I have next to nothing good to say about how the media (on the whole) conducted themselves in this campaign. I don't think my complaints here should take away from Obama's victory, as the Republicans made more than few mistakes and the loss is theirs and theirs alone. Still, it's hard not to see how the press completely ablated any and all professional standards in one clumsy attempt after another to destroy McCain and Palin. Meanwhile, when they weren't cheerleading for Obama they were actively ignoring even the most damning criticisms of their preferred candidate.

The frantic searching for any kind of ammo against Palin was one thing. But when the media is more interested in investigating 15 minutes of fame called Joe the Plumber than a candidate for President of the United States, its praise of said candidate's campaign rings hollow. There were plenty of things worthy of investigation with regard to Obama. They did not matter because the media refused to acknowledge them. McCain had pretty good results for a mediocre campaign. With the media running cover for him, Obama neither ran nor needed to run a strong campaign.

Socialism is No Joke

At a recent rally, Obama served up this joke in response to the McCain campaign's charges that he is socialist:

McCain has “called me a socialist for wanting to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can finally give tax relief to the middle class,” Obama said. “I don’t know what’s next. By the end of the week he'll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten.”

But this is not a throw-away joke; it's actually quite revealling, as John Hood posts at The Corner:

Ha ha.

Only, in this passage Obama revealed precisely why he is vulnerable to such charges: he can't seem to tell the difference between a gift and a theft. There is nothing remotely socialistic or communistic about sharing. If you have a toy that someone else wants, you have three choices in a free society. You can offer to trade it for something you value that is owned by the other. You can give the toy freely, as a sign of friendship or compassion. Or you can choose to do neither.

Collectivism in all its forms is about taking away your choice. Whether you wish to or not, the government compels you to surrender the toy, which it then redistributes to someone that government officials deem to be a more worthy owner. It won't even be someone you could ever know, in most cases. That's what makes the political philosophy unjust (by stripping you of control over yourself and the fruits of your labor) as well as counterproductive (by failing to give the recipient sufficient incentive to learn and work hard so he can earn his own toys in the future).

Government is not charity. It is not persuasion, or cooperation, or sharing. Government is a fist, a shove, a gun. Obama either doesn't understand this, or doesn't want voters to understand it.