The Victoria Cross

As the 150th anniversary of the Victoria Cross is celebrated, Richard Vinen looks beyond the individual acts of heroism that have merited the honour, to the wider social, cultural and historical significance of the medal.

The highest medal for gallantry awarded to members of the British armed forces, the Victoria Cross (VC), was instituted in 1856. Since that time, a huge body of literature has grown up around it. Much writing on the subject involves recounting particular actions in which the medal was won. Yet beyond this both military and cultural historians have tended to steer clear of the subject. However, records relating to the medal (particularly during the twentieth century) are extremely good and it is possible to establish biographical detail about almost all those who have won the medal since 1914. To mark the medal’s 150th anniversary, the National Archives are putting many of these records online.

To date 1,355 Victoria Crosses have been awarded. Though precise statistics about when and where medals were awarded are hard to come by, the awards can be loosely grouped into four categories. Just over 500 were given for action in engagements before 1914, most importantly during the Crimean War, the Indian Mutiny and the Boer War. About 620 medals were awarded during the First World War and around 180 during the Second. Read more.

"We agree about the problems," he writes. "Now we need to agree about the solution."

That second part is a bit of a hitch, because while the folks at Cato would respond to special-interest lobbying by reducing the size and scope of government so less of life is politicized and there is less to lobby about, Lessig would respond by amending the Constitution to restrict freedom of speech. Given this fundamental disagreement, Lessig's efforts to "build an understanding" with libertarians (and other fans of the First Amendment) will not get him where he wants to go. Read more.

The courage to do nothing

I have to say that I am a big fan of talk radio when politics or fascinating social phenomena are being discussed. In the hands of consummate artists like John Oakley, Charles Adler or even the galling John Moore, the topics are kept on course and listeners are spared the meanderings of myriad stuttering windbags. That being said I have noticed of late that there is an ever increasing demand by normally reasonable callers for government regulation to mend the salient issues of the day. A hot topic in Toronto this week is the strange increase is pedestrian deaths; we have had fourteen deaths in fourteen days. Without falling into the weather is not the climate argument – I tend to think of this as a run of bad luck rather than a new cause for MADD Canada.

Most people of good will hate to see people get killed even by their own carelessness, so the kneejerk reaction is to demand that government do something and fast. This is music to the ears of agenda driven politicians who can then craft a solution that taps into the angst of the moment to support their ingenious schemes. Already cash strapped pols are proposing that the speed limits in Toronto should be reduced - for safety reasons of course, but if revenue from speeding tickets were to go up, all the better. Perhaps unbearably slow speeds will finally cause the exasperation level to peak and drivers will flock to the TTC.
My point is lets not give them the ammo to blow a hole in our last vestiges of self-respect. Walking carelessly through traffic in a great metropolitan neighbourhood carries a hefty disincentive, namely death. So I think we should tell the politicians to stay out of this talking point and be more careful when they cross the street. I might not see them in time!

Beware LCBO - Its happening in Virginia

I must say that the LCBO stores look alot better that the Virginia ABC stores.

Response to Iggy targeting young people for support.

Young people today are being moulded and marshalled by the left from the moment they enter the school system. My grade six daughter has been subjected to politically motivated thought control campaigns every year she has been in the public system. I try my best to offer alternative explanations for the present state of the human condition, but against the relentless numinous agenda it is a losing battle.


The left has succeeded in removing context from lives of young people. They no longer learn the basics of Western culture or the important figures that have contributed to our way of life. Instead articles of faith are used to break their will to think. They are told that their way of life, while wonderful, has been built on the exploitation of other cultures, of the environment, of the poor, and they must atone.

I asked my daughter to identify any of the great explorers that opened up our country – she could not. I asked her to name any of the wars that our country fought – she could not. I asked her to name any of the political leaders who would qualify as the Fathers of Confederation – she could not. In frustration my next question was ‘what do they teach you at school?’

My daughters answer sent a shiver down my spine. The people she had learned about were all social activists. The culture of a mythical aboriginal nation was taught in minute detail. The tenets of recycling, anti-bullying, diversity, and avoiding “dangerous activities” could be recited verbatim. The Western concept of Reason had been replaced with a mysticism that I thought could only be found in a rabbit hole. I learned that her school was visited regularly by environmentalists and social councillors, but rarely by the heroes that build and defend Canada. (An anti-war themed Remembrance Day visit by veterans gave no arguments for a just war) The last straw for me came when my daughter described a field trip to a provincial park that housed an idyllic Indian village complete with professional Indians. With a straight face she was told that she must live in harmony with nature and that it was a legitimate activity to talk to plants. Oh boy!

So now you can see why the Liberals would get a royal welcome from their young troops. They created a Moonie culture within our schools when we were not looking and now they expect to collect the benefits.

Five Reasons Why Libertarians Shouldn't Hate Government

Plus, Five Big Projects That Went Well and Five That Were Disasters

When we tell our limited-government friends that we have written a book titled If We Can Put a Man on the Moon: Getting Big Things Done in Government, about how government can better accomplish what it sets out to do, the reaction is often horror.

“I don’t want to make government work better, I want it to go away" is the typical response. Government, in their view, is the enemy.
This way of thinking is deeply misguided, a troubling blind spot that keeps libertarians on the fringe of many policy debates. If you reflect only scorn for government, it’s hard to get anyone who hasn’t already drunk the Kool-Aid to take your opinions on the topic seriously.
This is not to disparage the argument that government is too large, for which the case is strong. But holding government in sneering contempt is a misinformed corruption of that sentiment.
Our Founding Fathers, fondly quoted by limited-government advocates, didn’t view government as evil, but as a flawed institution with some important jobs to do. They studied how government worked and they served in office, not because they viewed government with disdain, but because they knew the importance of good government. Read more.

Matt Gurney: The real drunk driving problem

As I was saying!!
Every December, the police tell us to drink responsibly and set up the spot checks to back up their warnings. It’s sad we still need to be told, but it’s good advice all the same. The situation has improved from decades past. Once upon a time, police officers pulled over impaired drivers only to send them on their way again with a friendly suggestion to take it easy — but that was another era. Those few who persist in driving drunk now have clearly have missed years of public service announcements. If they haven’t learned yet, they never will.
As an occasional drinker but frequent driver, I have a vested interest in keeping the roads safe. I never mind stopping at a spot check to briefly chat with an officer who is alert to even the faintest whiff of something tasty and fermented. Yet, though I fully support such efforts to get drunks off the road, I’m far from convinced that we’re going about it in a sensible way. Indeed, our approach to reducing impaired driving seems to be all too similar to how we secure airports — why focus on the real troublemakers when you can just target everyone?
I can’t speak for every province. Here in Ontario, though, Premier Dalton McGuinty’s government trumpets its tough-on-crime achievement of inventing a neat way to punish people who haven’t broken the law. Impaired driving, a Criminal Code violation, is defined federally as blowing a blood alcohol reading over .08% on a breath test or having over 80 milligrams of alcohol in a blood test. Either test will suffice as proof of guilt. Ontario has decided that it’s more comfortable setting the bar lower — at a blood alcohol level of .05%. Now, if you’re pulled over in Ontario and blow over .05 but less than .08, even though you are not legally drunk, your car will be towed, your licence suspended for three days and the incident will become part of your permanent driving record. Have fun at insurance renewal time, folks.
I also learned yesterday that a series of cases are winding their way through the courts, challenging the validity of Breathalyzer tests as conviction-worthy evidence. I’m willing to put my faith in the machines, and suspect that many of those claiming that they provided a false reading were probably pulled over while a slurring mess, swerving all over the road. But I did find this particular bit of wisdom from the Ontario judge who ruled in favour of Breathalyzer tests a bit worrisome: “[The law] does not support the proposition that the bar for success on a defence must be set so low that it can easily be cleared. There is probably no requirement that the law provide for any defence at all, much less one that is easily attainable.”
I understand the necessity of tightening up court policy so that every impaired driving charge isn’t thrown out on the grounds that the officer might have administered the test improperly, but no requirement for any defence at all? That would mean that in Ontario, you’re guilty until proven innocent of not breaking a law.
This isn’t good, not for anyone but constitutional lawyers and Charter experts, at any rate. They should have a field day with that one.
Adding insult to this injury is the fact that, just like with the above-mentioned airport screenings, we’re casting a tremendously wide net to catch a few easily identified individuals. It’s practically become a cliché: Almost every time a drunk driver kills someone, it’s quickly discovered that they are a chronic, repeat offender, with numerous prior convictions. Some are supposed to blow into an interlock device (a Breathalyzer wired into a car’s ignition) before driving, others are simply forbidden from driving at all. And yet they find ways around the restrictions and end up killing someone.
If lowering the legal limit to .05% will make the roads safer (and I’m sure it would), do it. If the rules governing admissibility of Breathalyzer evidence needed clarification, fine. But let’s not lose sight of the bigger issue — until the courts are willing to jail repeat offenders for long periods before they kill someone, innocents are going to keep dying. No spot check system, not even one backed by the strictest laws and regulations, will ever catch every drunk driver. So we need to clamp down hard at the first instance, not the tenth.
If the law needs changing and clarification, let the work begin there.
National Post Read more.

Death by Moderation?

Christopher John Burton: The quandary that we are facing is how to contend with the irony of individuals using the freedoms and traditions of western society in order to destroy it.

Thea Koenig: Perhaps there is a difference between destroy and change? One presumes death as a bad thing. The other perceives change as needed growth to sustain life.

Christopher John Burton: Change is good if it does not destroy the freedom to change.

Thea Koenig: I don't think that is possible. Change is the only constant in this world. Try as one might not to change, change will happen.

Christopher John Burton: I agree that change will always exert itself on every aspect of our lives; affecting technology, the economy, and science. My point is that there are certain inviolate principles that underlie our civilization and if they are subverted we will no longer be free to change. Global communism and global Islam are two forces that are at odds with our fundamental values.

Thea Koenig: Ahhh. Now I know what you are referring to. It is a quandry. It is difficult to know where the balance lies between creating a society in which people work for the common good, and at the same time enjoy personal freedoms to govern their own life as they see fit. Certainly, global Islam and Communism in their extreme forms miss that balance point, as does the conservative Christian movement and Capitalism inits purest form. I think of it like eating....everything in moderation!
Great discussions Chris.
 
Christopher John Burton: Not quite the quandary I was talking about. A tangible example would be the attempt by Islamists to enact Sharia law under the guise of religious freedom. These laws would certainly discriminate against women and subject them to a cultural ghetto where all manner of legal violence could be done upon them. Another example would be the granting of civilian legal protection to non-citizens who engage in acts of terrorism against a country, rather than treating them as irregular enemy combatants under the Geneva Convention. There can be no balance here.

As a libertarian I would of course reject any notion of “the common good” as a basis for depriving an individual of their inalienable rights. Who decides what the common good is and who must suffer to reach those goals. The whole “global warming” fiasco is a good case in point where an elite group of grant recipients are trying to impose their idea of the common good on the rest of us. I would refer you to a recent poll where two thirds of Canadians do not believe that global warming is man-made.
Certainly all of us have an ethical calculus that we use to guide our actions in life. Some are looser than others. In the West we are protected by the rights and traditions we have inherited and evolved from. The question I am struggling with is: What is the proper response to an entity or person who would use our cherished freedom for the expressed goal of subverting those freedoms? My instinct suggests that rational beings should vigorously criticize those within the country who would promote the use of force against us and support the power of government to react violently against those who use that force. Anyone attacking us from outside the country should be treated as an enemy combatant and be defeated militarily or economically. At this point I would say that the line is crossed when violence is initiated.
But how do we deal with the subtle method of incremental defeat through legal and political avenues? The tools used against us are the very same we use to protect ourselves. Our enemies attempt to disarm our response with the judicious use of guilt inspired by a savvy application of political correctness. The only way I can imagine that would stop this erosion would be through ridged constitutionalism which would employ clear and explicit protection for inalienable individual rights – including property rights. The problem with this solution is that we do not have disinterested rational people who know the difference between an entitlement and a right. Any suggestions on resolving this one would be most helpful.
Finally, one comment on the possibility of benign or moderate communism or Islam: These systems by their nature must compel submission from their populations. Any form of moderation would come from outside these systems – either cultural or philosophical forces. Turkey and Indonesia are good examples of countries that have counter-balances to the destructive influence of Islam. However, when regime altering convulsions occur in these countries Islam is always at the root. Perhaps moderate communism can only occur in voluntary congregations like the Mennonites. But, even here people are shunned for trying to leave and live a different life. Global Communism is an ideology that requires everyone to submit to the same rules and therefore cannot exist for long in the presences of freedom (read Capitalism). BTW I would love to hear what you mean by extreme Capitalism.

Thea Koenig: "What do you include in inalienable rights?
Who decides what is the common good, and what the proper response should be to attempts to subvert our freedoms is of course the problem, and I definitely don't have the answer. But I'd like to think, that while it is by no means perfect, our court system has the best shot of getting it right, eventually, as long as there is the freedom to challenge laws and engage in rational debate. Our society has a better chance than most of figuring it out.
Consequently, while it is infuriating that terrorists are afforded the civil rights we enjoy, I think it is important that we use the systems we have for all people charged with criminal acts, otherwise we run the risk of becoming exactly what we don't want to be. I am thinking of rendition, and how the US government, and probably the Canadian government, has been party to all manner of horrific violence against innocent people, in the name of national security.
While I support our government in responding swiftly and with the full force of the law toward anyone promoting and engaging in violent acts, I do not, think that the best way to respond to violence is with more violence. One only needs to look at the on-going battle between Israel and the Arab world to see that violence begets violence...always has, always will. Living in fear and responding with hatred ultimately destroys us.
The best way to preserve the freedoms and inalienable rights we value is to afford those same freedoms to others, and trust in the systems we have set up to work as they were intended.
Wish we lived closer to have these conversations in person. :)"

Christopher J Burton: 17th-century philosopher John Locke discussed natural rights (inalienable rights) in his work, identifying them as being "life, liberty, and estate (property)", and argued that such fundamental rights could not be surrendered in the social contract. Who am I to argue with John Locke – I can live with this list.

The problem lies within the social contract that individuals must rationally abide by in order to live in society. In the last hundred years the one organization that can legally put an individual to death has grown exponentially in power and influence. Unless it is curtailed by clear and exact rules the government will expand into every crevice of one’s life. There will always be vested interests that seek to benefit from the wealth confiscated by the bureaucratic machine. So yes the courts should decide, but within the parameters of tightly defined constitutional limits. The producers in society must have protection from those who would use the power of government to loot their property.
A terrorist is the fundamental enemy of an individual’s inalienable or natural rights – after all he seeks to attain his goals by depriving you of your most valuable possession, your life. Within the confines of Canada I would agree that the alleged terrorist should be availed of due process with the caveat that indiscriminate murder for political reasons should be subject to capital punishment. Timothy McVeigh received an appropriate sentence and justice was done. Outside of Canada terrorism against Canadians becomes an act of war and should be subject to military justice under the provisions of the Geneva Convention for irregular combatants. This would include the interrogation, detainment and possible deportment of these individuals to other jurisdictions. In war the stakes are too high not to use every method available to thwart the enemy’s next attack. I think these rules would keep us exactly as we want to be.
While entertaining for some I remind everyone that the movie “Rendition” is a work of fiction that is heavily biased and shows perhaps at best a potential scenario for wrongful conviction. When convictions cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt the government should make restitution to its citizens as in the Arar case. Foreigners convicted of terrorism should face military justice.
I cannot agree that one can equate initiated violence with reactive violence. One is wrong and the other is morally right and appropriate. Where would Israel be today if it did not have the will to protect itself? If the Arabs would stop initiating violence against Israel there would be peace – but it seems they just can’t stop lobbing missiles into populated areas. Where would all of us be if we did not have the will to stand up to the Axis powers in 1939? Where would the people of the Falkland Islands be if Britain did not have the will to expel the invading Argentine dictatorship? You are right when you say that violence begets violence, so beware all who would start a war. When a country lives in fear of attack and responds with violence fuelled by justifiable contempt they are opting for survival not destruction.
I agree whole heartedly that we must believe in our institutions and the underlying ideals that have created them. All we require is the will to defend what we know is rational and true with the tools we have at our disposal. Within Canada; due process – outside Canada, that is a matter for National Defence.

America's armed militia on the rise - Modern Leftists are devoid of principles and don't get it.

Extremist "patriot" groups and other armed militias have undergone a dramatic resurgence in America, their numbers more than doubling in the past year amid growing Right-wing fears over expanding federal power and gun control.
Such groups – a mix of libertarians, gun rights advocates and survivalists – appeared to be in terminal decline before the election of Barack Obama, according to monitoring bodies.

The Southern Poverty Law Centre, which tracks extremist organisations, says it has so far counted more than 300 patriot groups this year, at least double last year's total of 150. The real total will be much higher as many groups do not go out of their way to publicise their existence.
A similar wave of anti-government groups, some of whose members dress in camouflage gear and conduct military training at weekends, sprung up during the Clinton administration.

However, SPLC researchers said there was a new race factor reflecting President Obama's ethnicity and immigration fears.
The groups themselves reject accusations of racism but agree that many members are deeply worried about gun control, are angered by the federal economic rescue packages, and are dismayed by government interference in areas such as health care. They voice frustration at what they perceive as America's international decline. Read more.