His philosophical musings are always perceptive and intersting, if you like things like that.  WARNING:  Sometimes he sounds rather Christian for a philosopher.  But he tells me he’s not actually affiliated, just stumbling around in the dark.

Anyway, like Danton’s head, it’s worth a look.

So, the penultimate obstacle to Iran’s holocaust plan has been removed. The world’s powers have now informed Israel that she is on her own. The 6 million Jews living in the Iranian crosshairs must now decide if they have any alternative to “learning to live with an Iranian bomb” as one realist advises (See the “Conversation on Iran with Frankie Sturm” below). They may decide that “sending Iran’s nuclear program further underground” is not a bad idea, if you keep doing it.

This may turn out to represent as dark a day for freedom as the Munich pact, when “silent, mournful, abandoned, broken Czechoslovakia receded into the darkness” as Churchill put it. But Israel is unlikely to recede quite so quietly. A people whose cherished shrines include Masada will not go down without a fight.

America has suffered a humiliating defeat without a shot fired. As commenter Lester puts it, “America can’t afford to have a foreign policy anymore.” But money isn’t the problem; the will to defend freedom is our real deficit. Recently, Obama spoke the all-too-easy words: “Never Again.” Now he has retracted the words.

This is a tragic day for free peoples everywhere.

NATO ships, helicopters hunt down 7 pirates

The story, dated 19 April, 2009, describes an unsuccessful pirate attack, a pursuit by 2 NATO ships, and then:

“Both ships deployed helicopters, and naval officers hailed the pirates over loudspeakers and finally fired warning shots to stop them, Fernandes said, but not before the pirates had dumped most of their weapons overboard. NATO forces boarded the skiff, where they found a rocket-propelled grenade, and interrogated, disarmed and released the pirates.

“The pirates cannot be prosecuted under Canadian law because they did not attack Canadian citizens or interests and the crime was not committed on Canadian territory.

“When a ship is part of NATO, the detention of person is a matter for the national authorities,” Fernandes said. “It stops being a NATO issue and starts being a national issue.”

 Here’s another one, same day:

NATO ship foils pirates, frees hostages in Gulf of Aden

By Helen Kennedy
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Sunday, April 19th 2009, 4:00 AM

NATO

“Hostages and pirates stand with arms raised before Dutch NATO commandos chased pirates back to their ‘mother ship.’”

“Pirates trying to hijack a tanker in the Gulf of Aden on Saturday were foiled by Dutch commandos who chased them to their “mother ship” and freed 20 fishermen the brigands were holding captive.

“In another day of dramatic pirate battles off the coast of Somalia, thugs firing small arms and rockets began attacking Greek tanker Handytankers Magic just after dawn.

“Special forces from NATO-flagged Dutch Navy frigate The Seven Provinces swooped in to defend the tanker and pursued the fleeing pirates to a large Yemeni fishing boat.

“The Dutch commandos found 20 fishermen, all believed to be Yemeni, captive in the hold.

“The boat had been hijacked a week ago and was being used by the Somali pirates as a base to launch attacks on cargo ships.

“The commandos freed the fishermen, seized seven AK-47 assault rifles and one rocket-propelled grenade launcher and briefly detained seven pirates. The pirates had to be set free because NATO has no power to detain maritime suspects.”

 Bottom line:  Europe (and possibly now America) are now truly committed to a legalistic, constitutional-rights-protected, police response to every attack, from terrorism to piracy to direct military attacks on our soil.   We would do well to recall Supreme Court Justice Jackson’s (dissenting) comment in the 1930′s Terminiello case, that “the Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact.”  War cannot be waged by policemen armed with Miranda cards;  the UN has tried that many times, from watching genocide in Rwanda to watching rocket attacks on the Lebanon-Israel border.

 Obama got off to a good start on confronting pirates, using the right kind of diplomatic negotiations (“Saying ‘Nice doggie’, while looking around for a rock.”)  Now he needs to step up to the big question: Who polices the seas?  In the past, the answer was simple, whether it was piracy or the slave trade: the dominant navy.

 We all learned the clever line from the Vietnam War that “we can’t be the cops of the world.”  What we haven’t yet learned is the true nature of a world without cops, with only Dutch and Canadian crossing guards.

 Or am I wrong?  Comment me your comment.

There was a story about a delegation of British MP’s visiting Gaza to inspect the humanitarian crisis. The MPs were already on record as condemning Israel for the crisis and the war, so their comments were unsurprising. They called on Israel to relieve the suffering it had caused by closing off the Israeli-Gaza border crossings.

As I say, no surprises there. But then my mind drifted off to a trivia question I had heard recently. “Name three nations that each border only a single other country.” I came up with San Marino. Then I remembered Portugal.

I couldn’t get the others.  But, I realized, the Terrorist Republic of Gaza (or whatever they call themselves) is not a correct answer. For Gaza has two borders – one with “The Zionist Entity”, and one with Egypt. Yet the media routinely treat Gaza as if it were as isolated as San Marino.

So why does the BBC (and NPR and NBC and NYT and…) treat the Egyptian-Gaza border as non-existent? Why don’t diplomats and traveling parliamentarians demand that Egypt open the crossing to massive shipments of humanitarian aid?

Because Egypt is not run by Jews, that’s why.

Egypt closed its Gaza border for the same reason Israel did; for security reasons, because Hamas is not a responsible political body, but a maniacal death cult masquerading as a government. Israel and Egypt and everyone else who has to deal with Hamas face-to-face all know this. But only Israel is condemned by the self-hating Western Left.

Oh, now I remember the third one: Vatican City!

His tale is of course complicated. Many knocks against him are legitimate.  So what can you say to his credit?

Simply this.  George W. Bush fought hard against the enemies of his country, and never let popularity or politics distract him from doing so.

That accomplishment will be put in perspective by the subsequest performance of his successors.  Let us pray that it comes to be seen as a matter of course.

“The Democratic Party traces its origins to the Democratic-Republican Party, founded by Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and other influential opponents of the Federalists in 1792.”

–Wikipedia

Dear Wikipedia:

The above-quoted information is incorrect.  You have apparently confused the currently-existing Democratic Party with its predecessor, the Democratic Party of Jefferson, Jackson, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, and LBJ.  That party was driven out of existence by the new Democratic Party founded by George McGovern in 1972.

For clarification, one might refer to the current party as the Democratic Party-Provisionals, to distinguish it from the earlier Democratic Party-Officials.  But it is probably simpler to refer to them as Old Democrats and New Democrats.

The New Democratic Party was created in the wake of the wreckage of the old party caused by the “Great Cultural Revolution” of the 1960’s, culminating in the fiasco of the 1968 election when the Old Democrats’ convention was attacked by a mob of New Democrats, causing the Old D’s to lose a close election.

The New D’s immediately reversed direction from its predecessor on at least two of the major areas of policy.

First, the Vietnam War’s length, death toll, and mismanagement led the New D’s to abandon the previous Democrat-developed but bi-partisan foreign policy of the Cold War against Communism.  The McGovernites declared a separate peace with Communism, leaving the Republican Party to continue the Cold War as a partisan effort until total victory was won in 1989. The New Democrats carried their policy forward into the current struggle against Islamist Jihadi terrorism, opposing anti-Jihadism as it had previously opposed anti-communism.  This has even led to the new party’s near-total abandonment of the America’s closest democratic ally, Israel.

The second new direction taken by the New-D’s was in the area of the emerging counterculture.  The new party took sides in almost all cases with those attacking traditional American or Western values.

As a result, the new party has embraced or flirted with a range of then-extremist policies.  These included:

1) the normalization of homosexuality, followed by the “de-privileging” of heterosexuality, and culminating (so far) in the legalization of same-sex marriage and adoption;

2)  the creation of group identity and rights for oppressed minorities, rights that trumped individual rights in almost all cases and actually resulted in strict racial quotas;

3)  the decriminalization of all “private” behavior, including pornography and drug abuse;

and 4), the elimination of reference to religion in public discourse.

These policies are in every case either directly counter to those of the old Democratic Party, or at least grotesque distortions.

So, as you can see, your entry needs to be changed.  It should read as follows:

“The Democratic Party was created in 1972 by George McGovern and other opponents of the existing parties.  It was made up of left-wing members of the Old Democratic Party who felt that its principles were out of date.  It has enjoyed considerable success in its brief existence, electing three presidents: Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama.”  

This disastrous decline has been partly masked by the simultaneous growth of unions in the public sector.  While private unions sank, public ones climbed from near-zero in the 1950’s to around 36%, where it has held steady since 1980.  Decline has also been disguised by the growing political power of the union movement, as its electoral organizing skills have improved even as membership organizing has languished.

Why the decline?  Why have private sector workers stopped joining unions?

The unions have a ready answer:  it’s too hard to organize because employers cheat.  They scare and intimidate and fire workers who try to organize.

Undoubtedly true, in too many cases.  Union-busting consultants have a bag of anti-union tricks that can certainly make certification elections hard to win.  

But that just begs the question.  Why only now?  Didn’t employers know these tricks during all the years unions were growing?  Didn’t Henry Ford know how to intimidate workers?  Didn’t the steel companies?  Didn’t construction firms?  Coal-mine operators?  The Mohawk Valley Formula for union-busting was devised by the companies back in 1936. 

So why are so many unions now stymied by employer opposition? 

Other possible explanations for union decline abound.  Many heavily unionized manufacturing and textile industries have moved jobs overseas in search of lower costs. 

But other industries that are largely homebound have not been organized in their place.

And in fact many newer industries (high-tech, for instance) are often fairly good employers, offering decent benefits and workplace flexibility in a conscious effort to attract a happy, productive, and non-union workforce.

Private sectors may be short of members, but not of excuses.

One industry in particular looks like it ought to be a prime target for union organizers, no matter what: big-box retail.   Wal-Mart pays low wages and low benefits Wal-Mart can’t move its stores to China (they’ll open new ones there, but not close down ones here).  Wal-Mart workers are the very folks unions where created to help.  So why aren’t they organized?   That’s right – Wal-Mart management is anti-union.

Wal-Mart:  One company, 1.4 million unorganized, low-paid, benefitless workers spread across America.  And what has been labor’s response, after a few unsuccessful campaigns?   

“STOP WAL-MART!”  Boycott Wal-Mart!  Shop at their competitors, like Target and Costco (both mostly non-union).  And of course, pass the laughably-titled “Employee Free Choice Act”, so in case we get cards (one way or another), we can bypass the election process with its secret-ballot nonsense.  

(See “EFCA: Bad For Unions”, in my archive or at National Review Online )

Of course, if EFCA is passed, labor’s bluff will be called.  But what will unions really get for this anti-democratic, protectionist bit of organizational affirmative action?  Will they then be able to organize Wal-Mart?  What do you think?

If unions could get past their anger, resentment, and frustration, they might ask: “What would it take to organize Wal-Mart stores, or their counterparts like Costco, Target, and the rest?”

The answer is a tough one.   It will take a new type of unionism, one we haven’t invented yet.  One with no reliance on retro New-Deal Solidarity nostalgia.  A unionism without a blue-state ethos.  One that doesn’t make the Democratic Party the centerpiece of all our hopes and dreams.  One that works to get workers better pay and benefits, not to serve a political party.

Unions nostalgic for the 1930’s should re-examine the real history of the CIO.

A century ago, Henry Ford had a great idea: if he could make cars cheaper, he could sell more of them.  Then he figured out how to make them cheaper.  And he sold more.

Then, visionary union leaders had another great idea: if they could invent new unions that would be relevant to the new auto workers, they could help the workers and build the union movement.

So they did it.  And America was better for both.  In slightly simplistic terms, it is thanks to Henry Ford and the UAW that workers could afford to buy cars.

Sam Walton rediscovered Henry Ford’s idea, and has remade American society as a result.  Some find Sam’s creation as distasteful and unaesthetic as the automobile itself, but a lot of Americans seem to like lower prices and broader selection.  Wal-Mart is here to stay.

But where are the union visionaries who can see their way to the future?  If labor can’t figure out how to organize businesses like Wal-Mart, they can kiss the private sector good bye.  For those who think unions play a necessary role in our society, the consequences are worth contemplating.

The outlook?  Not good.  Not good.

Presidential elections can fit many patterns, and this one was no exception.  In retrospect it has a certain (and false) sense of inevitability.  Unpopular president, bad economy; these things don’t bode well for an incumbent party.   Yet nations, like individuals, possess a kind of free will, and formulaic determinism will always fall short.

But one pattern jumps out.  This was an election in which the domestic economy was the “top topic” on voters’ minds.  When that has happened recently, Democrats usually win.

By contrast, in 2004, war, terrorism, and international tensions were the top topics.  When that happens, Democrats usually lose – at least since 1972. That was the year that George McGovern set the style for pacifist anti-military presidential candidates.  Not one has varied from the McGovernite style since then.  It is not a problem for them when domestic issues (primarily the economy) dominate our concerns. That explains Obama, Clinton, Carter, and even (looking only at popular vote) Gore. 2008, like 1972, 1992, 1996, and 2000, were domestic elections.  All the others were dominated by security and foreign affairs, and Democrats lost.  Every one.

The only recent election that Republicans won despite low interest in foreign affairs was Bush pere in 1988. I guess even voters unconcerned with defense were put off by Snoopy Dukakis riding in his tank.

The amazing thing is that in at least two elections (1972 and 2004) discontent with unpopular wars (Vietnam and Iraq) made up a large part of the public focus on foreign affairs.  Yet the incumbents running those unpopular wars were not punished; they were re-elected!

Conclusion?  The Democratic Party’s ingrained pacifism is unacceptable when Americans are thinking about electing a Commander-In-Chief.  The Party may want to take a few minutes to worry about this someday.

I am a lifelong union man: an organizer, negotiator, staffer and leader.  I believe in unions and their importance for our society.  That’s why I think HR 800, the Orwellian-titled “Employee Free Choice Act” is an abomination.  And more than that, it is not good for unions.

Unions function effectively when they can build a mandate of support from their members.  EFCA would make it possible to organize unions without such a mandate, and thereby destroy the basic legitimacy of a union’s claim to represent a majority.

HR800 has passed the House and is waiting in the Senate for a filibuster-proof Democratic majority to pass it and President Obama to sign it.

EFCA contains four changes to long-standing labor law.  The one receiving most attention would require the National Labor Relations Board to certify unions without elections, solely on the basis of a “card check”

More on this below.

The second would require interest arbitration, having an arbitrator set the terms and conditions of employment, for first contracts that are not bargained within four months.  Such arbitration tends to distort and atrophy real negotiations, and result in an “arbitrator’s award” rather than a mutually-agreed-on contract.  The essence of all labor law on enforcement of agreements flows from contract law; without a contract, enforcement becomes arbitrary indeed. It’s like having judges create the law.

The other changes would expedite investigation into unfair labor charges made during a certification process, and increase penalties for employer violations.  These are good changes, exactly what is needed to make election campaigns more fair; they ought to be passed.

But eliminating elections amounts to de-legitimizing unions even where they exist.  It may look like a kind of affirmative action, but in fact it is far worse. 

Under current law, unions can only be certified by majority vote in a secret-ballot election (unless the employer agrees to a card check).  Existing unions can also be de-certified through the same process.  EFCA would upset this balance, making it easier to bring a union into a workplace than it would be to throw one out.

Currently, union de-certifications are rare (though unhappy union members talking about it are more common).  When a group of workers get cards signed to de-certify their union, they then have to go through an election campaign, and the union has a chance to defend itself.  This is only fair, and it promotes stability.

If unions could be de-certified by card-check alone, labor officials would be in for some rude surprises, as anti-union organizers might be able to run stealth campaigns and get cards signed (through fair or dubious methods), and Bingo! You’re out!

That is of course why the union-drafted EFCA has no provision for de-certification by card check.  But how likely is it that labor would be able to hold off a push, sooner or later, to re-even the scales by including it?

And even if the Democratic sweep is big enough Tuesday to get EFCA passed as it stands, the loss in legitimacy for unions will be devastating.  Most Americans think of labor unions as legitimate voices for workers, even though few belong to unions. That level of legitimacy will be lost if the House of Labor becomes a kind of Roach Motel where workers can check in but they can’t check out.

The underlying problem is that unions have shrunk almost to the point of no return in the private sector.  Union leaders admit that they pursue EFCA because they cannot organize under the present regime of effective employer campaigns and interminable legal delays. It is an act of desperation.

There is another path labor could take.  It could ask itself why so many workers find unions so unattractive, and it could make changes to become more attractive.  But they are unwilling to face the central fact of their difficulties: workers have come to see unions as political organizations for which Democratic Party victory is more important than workplace gains.

In the 1930’s when the AFL proved unable to organize industrial workers, far-sighted union leaders built a new type of union for the purpose: the CIO.  We could use some similarly far-sighted leaders today.  EFCA will just delay the day.

Labor’s best hope is that it be denied the kind of protection it seeks.  The law should be changed to make elections fairer, not to eliminate them.

From National Review Online, 11/4/08:

 http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmI2MGMwODM1YTI1Mzk5MGYyYzBmOGQ3ZTkyOWM2MjA=

Electing Obama is like electing Pandora, in the hope (there’s that word again) that when the box is opened good things will fly out.  That’s a heck of a hope, given the glimpses we have seen (through the media blackout) of Obama’s background and past associations.

And, once opened, the box will keep on giving.  Court appointees will determine our laws for decades to come (you thought congress did that?) The foreign policy results may take years, and fortunes in blood and treasure, to undo – if they can ever be undone.