Whispers from the Crypt #2

“Why is God landing in this enemy-occupied world in disguise and starting a sort of secret society to undermine the devil?

Why is He not landing in force, invading it? Is it that He is not strong enough? 

Well, Christians think He is going to land in force; we do not know when. But we can guess why He is delaying. He wants to give us the chance of joining His side freely. 

I do not suppose you and I would have thought much of a Frenchman who waited till the Allies were marching into Germany and then announced he was on our side. 

God will invade. 

But I wonder whether people who ask God to interfere openly and directly in our world quite realise what it will be like when He does. 

When that happens, it is the end of the world. When the author walks on to the stage the play is over. 

Lord, MAKE me Worthy to Receive You

God is going to invade, all right: but what is the good of saying you are on His side then, when you see the whole natural universe melting away like a dream and something else– 

something it never entered your head to conceive — 

comes crashing in; something so beautiful to some of us and so terrible to others that none of us will have any choice left? 

For this time it will be God without disguise; something so overwhelming that it will strike either irresistible love or irresistible horror into every creature. 

It will be too late then to choose your side. 

There is no use saying you choose to lie down when it has become impossible to stand up. That will not be the time for choosing: it will be the time when we discover which side we really have chosen, whether we realised it before or not. 

Now, today, this moment, is our chance to choose the right side.  

God is holding back to give us that chance. 

It will not last for ever. We must take it or leave it.”

C. S. Lewis: ‘Mere Christianity’. Ch 10 

(Thanks to Billy Bob.)

Drink deep. Tap the Barrels.

Pax.

Whispers from the Crypt #1

As I pull pints in the bar it often happens that the pumps 'sigh' and a whisper rises with the bubbles.

The same whispers are heard when I go down to the cellars, off which, behind a door, lies the Crypt.

I will bring them here.

“Men may keep a sort of level of good, but no man has ever been able to keep on one level of evil. That road goes down and down.”  

G.K. Chesterton.

http://www.catholicgentleman.net/2015/05/g-k-chesterton-its-not-gay-and-its-not-marriage/

Pax. 

A Wargone Conclusion.

I have forgotten who it was who said "Those who forget the past are bound to repeat it".  It might have been Aristotle, but then he was a great plagiarist.  But if he did, it was likely about events that some folk around him had forgotten from only a generation or two before.

"As things change, so they remain the same". There's another one. Furtive looks around the bar.

It is National Anniversary time in the UK  - indeed almost everywhere - to mark the end of World War 2. Overlook the why's and wherefores and we could be looking forward to WW3.

May the 8th marks 70 years since Winston Churchill famously declared victory

I was chatting to my very lovely friend the 'Southern Gal' last evening. She had discovered some films (reconstructions and actuals) about WW1.  She confessed having her eyes opened. She had previously given little thought to that 'War to End All Wars' of 100 years ago. 

How many have?

How many today even know much about WW2? 

Yet here we are at VE Day.  

Victory in Europe.

Mike Cunningham was in telling of how it is recalled.

and for Germany, General Jodl signs!

http://www.4liberty.org.uk/2015/05/07/and-for-germany-general-jodl-signs/

Some seventy years ago, come tomorrow, the second War to end all Wars came to an end, in Europe at least; the Far East portion lasted a little longer until the Japs saw sense with aces represented by two nuclear weapons back to back.  

The evil genius which had been Hitler was dead, the Russians were in the suburbs of Berlin; the armoured columns of the Americans, the British and the Canadians were racing towards the Elbe. Most of the German Army was trying to go west, in order to surrender to the Americans or the British; anything to get away from the avenging ferocity which was the artillery and tank columns of the Russian Marshal Zhukov. 

The war was ending, and it was almost as though Wagner’s Gotterdammerung was coming to reality. The promised Thousand Year Reich was slowly being pounded into the rubble which was all Germany’s cities had become; the adoring crowds at the Nazi ceremonies had somehow dissipated, the cheering was silenced long ago; and all that was left was the signing of the Surrender documents . 

Our Navies had vanquished the submarines which nearly starved us into surrender; our aircraft had swept the skies clear of the formidable Luftwaffe. The death camps were being discovered and liberated. Our forefathers, nearly all now dead, had vanquished the best trained, the most formidable War Machine on the planet, and it was time to celebrate.

I have a painting as a desktop on my computer, which I lifted from an Air Battle catalogue. and I was explaining to one of my grandsons about the brave boys and young men who flew bombing missions against Germany, whilst the fighter flyers of the German Luftwaffe were trying to kill them, and he asked me a very grown-up question; “Grandad, why?” The only answer which I could give to a seven-year-old boy was simple, “You see, the men who told those flyers to fight were really nasty people, and they had to be stopped!”

Yes, our peoples sang, and yes, they danced; but the ground upon which the dancing took place was soggy with blood!

As a reality check, just see what the younger generation believes why tomorrow was so very important.

The young. Yes, we answer their questions with simple explanations. We expect our schools to teach them in far more depth later as they get older.

One might optimistically expect our female dominated shooling system to give a warts and all account. There are plenty of texts for them to parrot.  One might expect the usual drivel about nasty men always having wars and making woman suffer. But no. From the public's display of knowledge it would appear that barely anything is taught.

The war itself was in vivid colour, but the memories are now in fading gray.

Victory, what victory? 

The generation that's clueless about VE Day: 

 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3069474/Victory-victory-generation-s-clueless-VE-Day-Survey-finds-half-Britain-s-18-25-year-olds-not-know-celebrates.html

Survey finds more than half of Britain's 18 to 25-year-olds do not know what it celebrates

• 54 per cent did not know it celebrates the end of Second World War in Europe

• May 8 will mark 70 years since Winston Churchill famously declared victory

• Seven per cent thought it was Margaret Thatcher and four thought Tony Blair

• Three-quarters of those asked underestimated tragic death toll of 60 million

It marked the end of years of blood, sweat and tears – but most young people have no idea what VE Day is.

With two days until the 70th anniversary, a survey found 54 per cent of Britons aged 18 to 25 did not know that Friday's VE Day celebrates the end of the Second World War in Europe.

 

And 38 per cent could not identify Winston Churchill as the prime minister who declared victory in Europe on May 8, 1945.

Seven per cent believed it was former US president John F Kennedy, another 7 per cent said Margaret Thatcher and 4 per cent thought it was Tony Blair.

Sad to say, no-one suggested that Kim Kardashian had anything to do with it. It could at least have given a laugh. 

The Onepoll survey, commissioned by SSAFA (Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association), the Armed Forces charity, questioned 1,000 young people about VE Day and the Second World War.

Asked which country's invasion by Germany led Britain to declare war in 1939, 55 per cent were unable to identify Poland – and 4.5 per cent said it was the invasion of England. 

David Murray, chief executive of SSAFA, said: 

'It is a real shame that so many of our young people do not have a basic level of knowledge of the Second World War.

'Many of them probably have not-too-distant relatives who fought in what was by far the biggest world war we have seen, in terms of lives lost.'

More than a third believed the first moon landing, Britain's entry into the European Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall had all happened before VE Day. !!!  And nearly three-quarters drastically underestimated the death toll, unaware that 60 million died.

Overall, women knew more than men on the details of the war and the poll revealed Scots to be most knowledgeable, while Londoners performed worst.

Well, there's a thing.  

Mr Murray, who served for more than 30 years in the RAF, said: 'The nostalgic memory of VE Day is being played out across Britain and so it should be. As a nation we have a strong tradition of celebrating our Forces and we have much to be proud of.'

Three days of commemorations will begin on Friday, when party leaders, royals, and veterans will gather for a day of remembrance at the Cenotaph in London.

At 3pm – the moment in 1945 that Churchill declared an end to war in Europe – there will be a two-minute silence across the country. Schools are being encouraged to hold events and observe the silence.

I have no doubt at all that some schools will declare that such a celebration is 'divisive'. Despite the war itself being all too 'Inclusive'. 

On Friday evening, a chain of more than 100 beacons will be lit from Unst in the Shetlands to Lowestoft in Suffolk.

And on Saturday communities are being encouraged to hold street parties while churches are being asked to ring their bells, at 11am as they did in 1945.

A Forties-style concert that evening in Horse Guards Parade, behind Downing Street, will be shown on BBC1.

At a service in Westminster Abbey on Sunday, the Queen, Duke of Edinburgh, Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall will be joined by veterans and their families, members of the Armed Forces and representatives of Allied nations.

A parade will go from the abbey past the balcony of the Treasury building, where Churchill made his historic VE Day speech.

Some in the bars bemoan the awful ignorance of American yoof. Most seem to know barely anything that is not related to pop kulcha, drugs or sex. There are exceptions of course.

The Southern Gal is well informed but even she is now of a generation that needs - as she is finding - to rediscover the past so as to understand the present and the future.

But British yoof and in fact general yobbish population, are as ignorant as any kid on the streets of Baltimore.

Perhaps I am being harsh. Perhaps a tad jaundiced. But woe betide those who forget.

The ignorance of even the sons and daughters of Heroes will be visited upon the following generations.

Such matters as war and conflict often crop up when I get my sword out from under the bartop and give it a polish and a bit of a run on the whetstone.

Keep yours sharp and ready, like your mind, like I do.  Remember. Even Southern ladies need to.

Drink deep of Grace and read up on your history.


Pax.

Mother's Day

At this time of the year we get ourselves ready to host large numbers in the restaurant at the weekend.  At the head of each table will be 'Mum'. There will be kiddies from three to thirty three. Sometimes there will be a Dad.

Where would we be without our Mums? So many, especially of my generation, worked so hard and put up with real privation just to make sure we nippers had enough and were well cared-for.  They were just splendid. I will be praying for the repose of mine come this Sunday.

The 'celebration' started out as a Church Feast Day a long time ago. It was a Sunday when one went to the Parish one was born in, to the Church that was your 'Mother Church'. A little bit reminiscent of Mary going to Bethlehem for the census.

It was 'Mothering Sunday'. Nothing to do with our own mothers as such.

But that is all gone now. 

Now it is the top spot of the year after Valentine's Day (that was about a Saint, slaughtered with arrows  for his Love of Christ - now't to do with Cupid or the girl/boy next door) and Christmas (now't to do with Reindeer and shopping) on the Hallmark Company's profit column.

Mother's day ! Ker-ching.

The Department Stores are as busy as the Tavern this week. (But do not give their goods for free)

For many families it is a happy occasion and we try to make it so.  The Tavern is decked with pretty stuff and the waiters are briefed on being deferential. 

We are all for good mums in the Tavern.

But one notices the missing-in-action. Every year there are fewer Dads. Every year their are fewer genuine smiles on the younger kiddies' faces. Every year there are more 'forced' smiles on the mums' faces. A strained jollity. Every year the children have yet another reminder of the unworkable conundrums that blight their lives in our 'Hilary Village' society.

My mate Ron Collins was supping a pint and telling of how it is for him this year. I often chat with Ron. I have had chats with his daughter too. Splendid little girl. She is the apple of his eye.

Ron knows all about minefields in the no-man's land of the Human Heart. 

Mothers' Day and the children of abandoned Fathers 

http://antimisandry.com/win-parenting/58419.htm

I have a mother. 

I call her on Mothers' Day. She appreciates it. We talk, we enjoy it, and life goes on. My dad appreciates this too, as he has long been her champion and defender, and my staying on good terms with my mom is something that benefits the both of them, as they both know that this (for reasons I needn't go into) has been something that took years to establish on healthy grounds with both of them and their grown children. 

Things happen, people hold grudges, and events like Mothers' or Fathers' Day aren't always something that comes naturally for even the most close-knit families. 

But, as with so many issues facing children with separated parents, and more often than not an absent father who is the household villain-icon in a mother-dominated environment, how often does anyone consider what these things mean to them? At the time while they are still children, and going on throughout their lives as future adults and parents themselves?

To begin a truly adult discussion on this, may we at least be frank about the existing terms and conditions we face in modern life? 

I assert that we live in a time in which motherhood is exalted while fatherhood is held suspect. That motherhood is considered fundamental and irreplaceable for children's well-being, while fatherhood is seen as conditionally disposable, even optional, for them.

I often agree with Ron. He is right about disposable dads, but here though I need to interject that today even though Motherhood is ranked well above fatherhood, Motherhood itself is demeaned and dismantled while we struggle to 'Celebrate'. 

Yes, the children are often seen in 'more need' of a mother than of a father, but motherhood itself, and children, are seen all too often as an encumberence that interferes with 'lifestyle' and a 'woman's right to do whatever she wants with her body'. 

Which includes, of course, killing children, mostly before birth and all too often after as well. 

Woe to the mother who actually wants to mother her children. She is cajoled back to work. The 'economeee' requires her quite modest taxes. And there are legions of late teenage girls and young women who need to be fed into the 'community' as 'Child-care Workers'. (Do not let those nasty boys and young men anywhere near the children, of course). The education departments demand their share of the social engineering action too. How are the schools to remain female dominated if women are allowed to stay at home with their children. Heck, some might even want to Home-School them !!!

That motherhood is held to a lower standard of accountability in terms of the long-term effect on children of mothers' actions, than is fatherhood. 

So, with these back-to-back events every spring honoring first mothers and then fathers, are we in fact celebrating a set of parallel roles to children, giving them the same respect and value as each other? 

Or, is it no mistake that Mothers' Day exists as an event in its own sphere, while fatherhood must take a place in the greetings hierarchy as part of "dads and grads", as an honorable but less distinct achievement, as if fathering and finishing high school both were only what was expected of us to begin with but no more?

That is, in America, of course. In Oz the fathers do not get lumped in with 'grads'. They just get lumped. 

As merits of compliance with standards set by others on us, but not of actual adult accomplishments in their own right?

I have dealt with this conundrum of the value of fathers for many years as a man separated, against my fatherly wishes, from my children. 

And, Mothers' Day is an annual torment for me, but not because I don't appreciate motherhood or even because I don't think that my children can be well and happy with their mothers and without me. Enough experience has been gained historically by now in this world, to make the claim that maybe children don't need fathers to have happy childhoods. 

Indeed, the challenge for the separated father begins with not being the source of misery and conflict his role as a rejected parent seems to demand him to be. 

We have to learn the craft of both believing our children need us, and accepting that they aren't ever going to get what we have to offer them in full measure, and try to live with both these conflicting realities. 

If we don't, it is all too easy for a man to live down to every negative remark, every justification offered, every oft-repeated accusation of how like their fathers our children are, and play that part perfectly whether we mean to or not. And be the very engine of discontent we were accused of being when we were abandoned in the first place.

Something just happened today to put this all in a very unexpected perspective. 

My daughter, who has had separated parents for essentially her entire life, called me today to ask some innocent advice about some Mothers' Day plan she is making, and despite my (not at my best?) efforts, she picked up something in my tone of voice. 

She asked me why I sounded so "gloomy" (while I'm thinking "daughter, you don't know the half of it..." let's just say, things are not so good between her parents these days), and I was trying to compose the rest of a properly fatherly reply which had begun with, "honey, I'm glad you love your mother, I'm glad you want to do something nice for her..."

Before anyone jumps in to critique me in handling this very delicate moment, assume if you will that it's not my first rodeo here. I've tried to deal fairly with both my children for eighteen years, and with two different women who each openly abandoned and rejected my place in their lives and theirs in mine. I knew from the beginning how easily children will blame themselves for these adult failures, how hard they take them and how many ways they will internalize them or act them out. I have always tried to be as supportive of their mothers' parental role as I could manage, and my tongue has the scars to prove it from all the biting of it I've done to keep from saying things more impulsive and vindictive than my children would benefit from hearing.

So, this cue from my daughter was not by any means the first time I have had to find the right words. 

But, this time she was onto me to begin with, because as a brave and loyal daughter, she has made every effort to be her father's rightful child and uphold my place in her life against all the circumstances that have had us apart so much of her life. 

She knows me too well, it turns out, for me to just act the part and deliver the lines. I had to say something honest, but not bitter or judgmental, in the context a longtime standoff between her parents that is more than visible to her, and for which she is not to blame.

But, I never got the chance.

I never heard any click or odd noise, but as I said it's not my first rodeo, so when I heard her mother's voice saying (at that exact critical moment...) she needed the phone to call the office? 

A safe bet she'd been listening in from the start.

If so, all she managed to do was spoil our little girl's heartfelt surprise for her mother, but not catch me saying something I had no intention of saying anyway.

I called my mom and dad to verbalize my frustration over this kind of thing happening again and again for years now, not to me but to my kids. 

What are they (the children) going to make of how awkward and constrained it was throughout their childhoods, just to be on close and earnest terms with their adult male parent? 

What will they invest of this in their own lives as adults and parents? 

What will they think of either of us, or of the whole institution of adult life, when this is how it has been presented to them? 

Strained, self-censored, careful conversations, monitored, eavesdropped and debriefed for a lifetime by the offended parent whose hegemony is so easily threatened by a child talking to her or his father as if they were actually part of the same family?

Mom and Dad had plenty of supportive commentary and sound advice, but this wasn't why I called them, and they knew that too. I just had to let it out, that aside from how ridiculous and unjust it is for a man to try and operate as a father on these terms, how can we even calculate what this does to children to have to be in the middle of it? 

And how has it come to pass that a mother has this kind of power to define to a man she has walked away from on her own volition, what he may or may not say to their children?

So, go ahead and observe Mothers' Day. I know I will. Heck, some of my best friends (to borrow a cliche) are moms. But maybe give a thought or two to the children of abandoned fathers, and wonder for the sake of humanity's future, what all this elevating of motherhood as a thing above and of greater value than fatherhood does to the children who have both, but with the former dictating to all parties the terms of their relationship with the latter?

I know I'll be doing that too, this Mothers' and Fathers' Day, both.

Enjoy Motherhood, ladies. It is God-given. A Gift.  

From God the Father. 

Be nice.

Pax.

Pakistan: the Israel of the East ? Not Likely.

Occasionally someone asks a question about International politics that gets a chap scratching his arse.  As so it was the other day. Many a backside squirmed and shifted on its bar-stool. The subject had been Israel and all the usual condemnations by the UN which seems to have reached just as certain a 'consensus' as the global warming mafia. One wonders if Al Gore has shares in the UN as well.

Israel gets it in the neck with boring regularity from the UN. The totally negative attitude seeps down even to Oz Universities where one finds the scummiest sorts of anti-semitic, bearded lefties in the engine room of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions slime-pit.

It is as if the Israel-Palestine issue were the only game in town in this inceasingly blinkered and going mad world of ours. I say 'ours', barely acknowledging that I have to live cheek by jowl with 7 billion mostly mad buggers despite trying hard to make a living as a hermit. Many of my customers seem similarly afflicted with dismay.

But our friend Denis Prager was not about to let an opportunity go by without reminding those BDS folk that they too have other protest, chanting and spitting opportunities that they might consider for, say, every other weekend.

You see, the creation of Israel in the mid 1940's happened not in isolation. Go a tad further east and it this 'Nation-Birthing was happening in the great Sub-Continent at the same time.

The British who had tried hard to civilise the natives in Arabic lands, had been trying for an even longer time in India, and frankly had done a damned fine job. But, as ever, the poor British ended up with the 'Damned' and left the 'Fine' to others.  

Pushed and shoved by bankrupcy after WW2 and by the freedom-loving ally America who disapproved of Britain having an Empire while they did not, Britain reluctantly disembarked from the Sub-Continent ship while there was still a lick or two of tar to be applied to the hull.  And you know what happens for the sake of a ha'peth of tar.

The Sub-Continent, having been united at great expense in Blood and Treasure, was sub-divided. 

Just as the Muslim Arabs got the lion's share of the middle east, and Israel a tiny bit to establish their 'Religious-rationale' Jewish State, so too did Hindu India get a large part to themselves and a smaller part was given to the Muslims as their 'religious-rationale' State of Pakistan.  

See where we are going?

Denis takes us down the road if you cannot see quite yet.

No-one as yet boycotts Pakistan. 

The University of Sydney Geography department is slacking.

Why Is Pakistan More Legitimate than Israel?

Whenever I have received a call from a listener to my radio show challenging Israel’s legitimacy, I have asked these people if they ever called a radio show to challenge any other country’s legitimacy. 

In particular, I ask, have they ever questioned the legitimacy of Pakistan?

The answer, of course, is always “no.” 

In fact, no caller ever understood why I even mentioned Pakistan.

There are two reasons for this.

First, of all the 200-plus countries in the world, only Israel’s legitimacy is challenged. So mentioning any other country seems strange to a caller. Second, almost no one outside of India and Pakistan knows anything about the founding of Pakistan.

 http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/dennis-prager/why-is-pakistan-more-legitimate-than-israel/

Get up to speed, folks.  

Only months before the U.N. adopted a proposal to partition Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state in 1947, India was partitioned into a Muslim and a Hindu state. 

The Hindu state was, of course, India. And the Muslim state became known as Pakistan. It comprises 310,000 square miles, about 40,000 square miles larger than Texas.

In both cases, the declaration of an independent state resulted in violence. 

The 'violence' has resulted in sevaral wars between the two and both sides developing an arsenal of nuclear weapons. 

The BDS mob have ignored all of that. 

As soon as the newly established state of Israel was declared in May 1948, it was invaded by six Arab armies. 

And the partition of India led to a terrible violence between Muslims and Hindus.

According to the final report of the United Nations Conciliation Commission from Dec. 28, 1949, the 1948 war of Israel’s independence created 726,000 Arab refugees. Many sources put the figure at about 200,000 less. A roughly equal number of Jewish refugees — approximately 700,000 — were created when they were forcibly expelled from the Arab countries where they had lived for countless generations. In addition, approximately 10,000 Arabs were killed in the fighting that ensued after the Arab invasion of Israel.

Now let’s turn to the creation of Pakistan. 

According to the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees, the creation of Pakistan resulted in 

14 million refugees — 

.....Hindus fleeing Pakistan and Muslims fleeing India. Assuming a 50-50 split, the creation of Pakistan produced about seven million Hindu refugees — at least 10 times the number of Arab refugees that resulted from the war surrounding Israel’s creation. And the Mideast war, it should be recalled, was started by the Arab nations surrounding Israel.

Were it not for the Arab rejection of Israel’s creation (and existence within any borders) and the subsequent Arab invasion, there would have been no Arab refugees.

And regarding deaths, the highest estimate of Arab deaths during the 1948 war following the partition of Palestine is 10,000. The number of deaths that resulted from the creation of Pakistan is around one million.

In addition, according to the Indian government, at least 86,000 women were raped. Most historians believe the number to be far higher. The number of women raped when Israel was established is close to zero. From all evidence I could find, the highest estimate was 12.

Given the spectacularly larger number of refugees and deaths caused by the partition of India and the creation of Pakistan, why does no one ever question the legitimacy of Pakistan’s existence?

This question is particularly valid given another fact: Never before in history was there a Pakistan. It was a completely new nation. 

Moreover, its creation was made possible solely because of Muslim invasion. 

It was Muslims who invaded India, and killed about 60 million Hindus during the thousand-year Muslim rule of India. The area now known as Pakistan was Hindu until the Muslims invaded it in A.D. 711.

On the other and, modern Israel is the third Jewish state in the geographic area known as Palestine. The first was destroyed in 586 B.C., the second in A.D. 70. And there was never a non-Jewish sovereign state in Palestine.

So, given all these facts, why is Israel’s legitimacy challenged, while the legitimacy of Pakistan, a state that had never before existed and whose creation resulted in the largest mass migration in recorded history, is never challenged?

The answer is so obvious that only those who graduated from college, and especially from graduate school, need to be told: Israel is the one Jewish state in the world. So, while there are 49 Muslim-majority countries and 22 Arab states, much of the world questions or outright only rejects the right of the one Jewish state, the size of New Jersey, to exist.

If you are a student in Middle Eastern Studies — or for that matter, almost any other humanities department — and your professor is anti-Israel, ask your professor why Pakistan is legitimate and Israel isn’t.

They won’t have a good answer. Their opposition to Israel isn’t based on moral considerations.

The border between Israel has always been a place of conflict. Israel is heavily criticised for building  a fence and a wall. The BDS mob cite this as evidence of Israel's 'apartheid' and 'racism'.

What of the fences between Pakistan and India?

 It is an invisible one to bearded Uni students and their agitprop professors.

Quite what level of apoplexy they would have if someone from the border guard force came over to give a lecture, I cannot imagine. I do know they would not be allowed to speak, just as Col Kemp was prevented the other week. 

One might be just a little worried (depending which side of the fence you are on) about girls who cannot lift up their rifles. 

Perhaps India might think a bit more about this feminist equality bizzo a bit more.

And quite what the BDS weenies would make of the daily audience-participation insults at the border crossings, well....... actually I can imagine inviting some of these altercating chaps in for a drink in the P&B. At least they can shake hands once in a while.

Pax. 

(as opposed to Pakis)

Unions and Money

Quite often a conversation will break out in the Tavern about taxes and cheats, 'evasion' and of course, the 1%. Such discussions mostly arise from some lefty who has slipped in under the Tavern's 'Tolerance' rule.

It is unfortunate that some are otherwise supportive folk in some matters but one has to be careful with whom one associates.

The 'workers' are seen as done-down (not to be confused with dumbed-down) while the 'fat cats' get away with massive fraud. 

Which of course shafts the 'workers'.

Some of it is quite understandable. The very rich do all too often pay less percentage-wise than the poorer saps who work for that same 'man'. (It's always a man despite most of the world's wealth being inherited by widows who outlive their lifetime love and provider). 

And this is a cause for angst amongst the lefties who conveniently overlook the fact that it is the 'high earners (like lorry drivers in the Pilbara) that pay most of the taxes in Oz while well over a mere majority of people contribute a net negative. That is, they get more than the modest amount that they do pay in taxes.

Recently even I had to splutter hearing that the Arch Lefty Georg Soros, the financier of many a lefty political cause and general interference,  owes some $7 Billion in taxes.  Lefties rarely mention one of their own. 

Looking over his shoulder for the IRS 

They never, of course, point a finger at actors and actresses who earn mega-millions for ....what exactly? Reading a script that a somewhat literate 'worker' has written?

Or footballers who 'earn' several hundred thousand per annum (sometimes millions) for kicking a ball around. These are the 'workers' heroes !  No-one to my ken has asked how much tax they pay and how many are cheating. 

Drug cheating by their hero is defended to the hilt, but tax cheating never even looked at.

Demands are made to stop the 'tax concessions' that Churches enjoy, but no-one seems to say the same about Unions.

Why is that?

Unions 'protect' the 'workers' we are to understand. And direct the socialists in political power.

They create and deploy public  'Policy' through their Parliamentary mouth-pieces, and only occasionally does this produce a fit of coughing. As it has now. 

And yes, it does have something to do with same-sex marriage equality, although frankly I am buggered ('scuse the pun) if I can see what it has to do with working for the man. 

Perhaps it is something to do with that shafting.

But in looking at which Unions support gay union and which do not, some odd and rather more 'worker' shafting is exposed. As Judith Sloan (Professor and frequent customer of this Tavern) told us.

It’s not about gay marriage

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2015/05/02/its-not-about-gay-marriage/

The revelation that the Shoppies enters into bargains with the big supermarkets to obtain close-to-closed shop arrangements is not new.  Mind you, the fee that the union pays to Woolies and Coles to electronically remit the union dues from the employees’ pay packets looks a bit steep.

Get that? The Union PAYS a fee to the Supermarkers to take money from the workers. The  Union takes that fee from the workers ! Do you think the workers know about that? 

But when there is a pact with the devil – chose which party you regard as the devil – there is always a price to pay.

This is how the arrangement works.  The Shoppies (the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association – SDA) offers the big supermarkets special deals relative to the award – no penalty rates on Saturday, lower penalty rates on Sunday and Public Holidays. There is a bit of boost to the cash rate of pay for workers relative to the award,  but it’s a very good deal for the supermarkets, particularly as their competitors are not offered the same deal (this is part of the pact) and many of the smaller operators are bound by the award.

(One of the reason that everyone got so upset by the proposed deal in SA is that the essence of the big supermarket deal might be made available more widely.)

The Fair Work Commission certifies these agreements because they are union EBAs. Strictly speaking, they do not meet the BOOT (better off overall test) for employees working exclusively during weekends and Public Holidays – but what the heck.  The SDA likes it, Coles and Woolies like it, the vote of workers gives it the tick.

It is just that the workers do not know about being sold down the river and having to pay the guy that does the selling. 

In exchange for this deal, the big supermarkets facilitate union membership by allowing a union delegate in at the time of induction and providing all the paperwork to new employees.   

New workers aren’t quite forced to sign up, but it is pretty close – strongly encouraged, you might say.

The Union has 'boys to send around' too, of course.  

This is the last that most Woolies and Coles employees will see of the union.

It’s a great deal for the Shoppies – a steady flow of union dues and membership numbers boosting influence in the Labor Party, thereby securing pre-selections for Shoppies (or more generally, Right) candidates in both federal and state parliaments.   

Paying a commission to Coles and Woolies for the arrangement is a price well worth paying.

Especially when it is the workers who are coughing up as they are shafted. 

Now Fairfax has never taken the slightest notice of this extremely dubious and dodgy deal until the overlay with the quest for legalised gay marriage emerged.   

The SDA, being one of the few 'conservative' unions, is strongly opposed to legalised gay marriage and it would expect its aligned parliamentarians to vote it down.

For The Age, unions good (make that Left unions good); encouragement of union membership good; unions opposing gay marriage bad.  It’s all very vexing.

In fact, the real issue is the immorality of the arrangement whereby young people are effectively dragooned into joining the union only to be sold down the river in terms of pay and conditions.  And this arrangement is endorse by our ‘independent umpire’.

Here’s the teeth gnashing piece from The Age:

Australia’s biggest private-sector union pays major employers including Coles and Woolworths up to $5 million a year in commissions that help maintain its large membership, and influence in the Labor Party.

The ALP’s largest union affiliate, the Shop, Distributive & Allied Employees Association (SDA) plays a significant role in social policy debates, its influence viewed as pivotal to marriage equality in Australia.

Fairfax Media has investigated the political, industrial and social clout wielded by the SDA, and its close relationship with employers, including payments to retailers of as much as $40 million over the past decade as “commission” for the employers deducting union fees from members’ pay packets.

The Catholic-led union has been a stumbling block for same sex marriage legislation, and could be again when the issue returns to Parliament later this year.

 As I said, it is unfortunate that some are otherwise supportive folk in some matters but one has to be careful with whom one associates.

This week, the union again weighed into the marriage issue, slamming Deputy Opposition Leader Tanya Plibersek’s call for Labor’s July national conference to force a binding vote on the issue.

The shoppies’ power is based on numbers in the union movement, the ALP and in parliaments, with 10 to 12 federal MPs within its immediate orbit of influence.

"They just forget to say how much I was paying for it"

The Andrews government in Victoria includes about nine SDA-linked MPs – although a recent internal spat appears to have reduced that number to seven, for the moment – including cabinet ministers and Deputy Premier James Merlino.

But the ultimate source of the union’s strength is its 200,000-plus membership including supermarket, department store and fast-food staff, warehouse workers, hairdressers and models.

The large membership – and its maintenance – has become more important as other unions have declined over the last 25 years, giving the SDA proportionately more power in the ALP.

The union’s methods for gaining and maintaining members are unusual by current industrial relations standards. It pays up to 10 per cent of members’ dues in commissions to major employers including Coles and Woolworths, ostensibly for the cost of payroll deductions.

The fees – totaling as much as $5 million a year – are likely well in excess of the true cost to employers of electronic payroll deductions.

The figures are based on publicly available accounts for some of the larger SDA branches which detail the “commission” payments.

Other unions, including the National Union of Workers and meat workers union, also pay fees for payroll deductions, but the payments are much lower and in the tens of thousands, not millions.

SDA national secretary Gerard Dwyer said the union had been paying the fees since a 1971 ACTU-brokered “closed-shop” agreement struck between the big retailers and unions including the SDA.

Under that agreement employers literally signed up members. The fees remain despite closed shops being banned nearly 20 years ago.

Mr Dwyer defended the payments as an administrative charge. He said they helped the union, which struggled with turnover of workers in the casualised and part-time retail sector. “It’s just there, it’s just a fact of life,” he said. “If you were starting with a clean slate maybe you’d do it differently.”

Mr Dwyer denied the payments compromised the union or bolstered its membership. “I completely reject there is any linkage between the money and the energy in our representation.”

Eh up, a real Mandy Rice Davis moment there !! 

"Well, 'e would say that, wouldn't 'e?"

He said retail workers in Australia were some of the highest paid in the world.

A Coles spokesman did not answer questions on how much it receives from the SDA but said it receives a “small fee” to offset costs. Woolworths also would not say how much it receives and said its “administration of these fees” was in line with other companies.

While senior Labor figures estimate about a sixth of Labor’s caucus is closely aligned to the SDA – the largest union bloc in the federal party – it also has a reputation for using hardline tactics in the ALP to bolster its clout.

Labor’s platform supports marriage equality, however, in 2011 a compromise pushed by the SDA, it also allowed MPs a conscience vote. 

It will be an issue again at the ALP national conference in July.

Prominent lobby group Australian Marriage Equality says SDA could be the difference between same sex legislation passing Parliament this year.

“It [the union] influences the votes of enough Labor senators and MPs to make the difference if, as seems likely, the overall vote is close,” said the group’s national director, Rodney Croome.

Political scientist John Warhurst said the SDA was set to play a  ”crucial” role in the debate.

“A conscience vote on both sides would mean the matter will be fought out on individual basis, MP by MP; and the numbers would be very important.

“The legislation would only pass if you have a pretty strong vote from ALP MPs. So the SDA could well be crucial to the outcome.”

But even if Labor changes its policy to require a binding vote, SDA-linked and MPs are likely to cross the floor, and risk expulsion, to vote against same sex marriage.

In 2012, a marriage equality bill was defeated 98 to 42 when close to 30 Labor MPs voted with the Coalition against it. Many of the Labor MPs who voted no were linked, to varying degrees, to the SDA.

“If it wasn’t for the SDA,” said Mr Croome, “Australia may well have had marriage equality in 2012.”

National SDA president Joe de Bruyn insisted that, while the union had never polled its members on the issue, they agreed “absolutely” with the union leadership on same sex marriage.

A bit of a quandry amongst cusomers in the bar. The Catholics and many of the traditionalist others approve of the stance of the Union's opposition to  'same-sex marriage'. BUT they disapprove of power being gained by cheating workers. Especially young workers.

Someone should get the mops out and go into the Union's cellars for a lot of hard washing of floors.

Pax.