Tag Archives: socialism

Post-secondary education a privilege, not a right

Posted on by

The St. John’s Telegram – February 2, 2012
Post-secondary education a privilege, not a right
By Paul Hussey

Us university lot are pampered pretty well here in Newfoundland and Labrador, if I do say so myself. Dirt-cheap tuition, a government that bends over backwards and falls to their knees at the students’ command, and Harvard-like admission averages of 65 per cent or better to get into Memorial University out of high school. (That last tidbit of information is sure to make all the Ferris Bueller-types at high schools from Bishops College to Burgeo Academy clean up their acts and hit the books extra hard to get their As in the final stretch, I’m sure.)

Now, we’re not lucky enough yet to receive free passes to the Spa at the Monastery just for showing up to classes each day – although, come to think of it, I’d love a MUN-sponsored massage right about now. But the way things are going, we may not have to wait until the next provincial election before all three parties start throwing around those types of promises.

In the meantime, yesterday marked the National Day of Action in this country, where student activists in this province rallied at Memorial University and other post-secondary institutions in protest of the federal government’s stance on post-secondary education. They want a collective vision for a well-funded post-secondary education system that builds a fair society, while combating corporate greed, and proclaiming that “education is a right.”

And it’s true – education is a right. It even says so in the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights that “everyone has the right to education.” However, if you read a little further, it adds a little more detail on the subject: “Education shall be free, at least at the elementary and fundamental stages. … Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on basis of merit.” Key words: generally available.

While it’s admirable for activists from the student movement to proclaim that education is a right, post-secondary education isn’t a basic human right – it’s a privilege. And in Canada, any students that meet the standards of merit to gain entry into post-secondary institution – on the basis of scholastic achievement, or athletic abilities they can offer in the school’s environment – can do so while paying for it themselves, receiving student loans, non-repayable grant money and scholarships.

That’s the beautiful thing about Canada. Anybody can go to a post-secondary institution, no matter what socio-economic background they come from. But according to the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) and the rest of the student activists across the country, this isn’t enough. In their minds, the value of post-secondary education should be held on the same level as other basic human rights, as something that no person should have to live without. And in all reality, they don’t. Any student in Canada that wishes to attend a post-secondary can do so, by paying – yes, young people have to pay for things, too – and not indebting the federal government on something that is worth its weight in gold. It might sound like a good idea at the time, but it’s more tax dollars that you and your grandchildren will be burdened with at another time.

If the CFS had its wits about it, it would spend less time arguing what is and isn’t a right, and spend more time communicating a stronger and more realistic message to Canadians on student issues. Either way, this province’s student activists have been holding our province’s governments at their mercy for quite some time now. If anyone’s going to convince the federal government that post-secondary education is a right, then it may as well be them. But with Harper still in power, there’s a better chance of hell freezing over.

Paul Hussey is an English and political science student at Memorial University, and news editor of The Muse.

Orange Crush Becomes NDP Crushed: David Krayden

Posted on by

By David Krayden

Members of the decidedly withering Bloc Quebecois caucus would probably be the first to acknowledge, with exuberant pride, their Gaullist ancestry, meaning a family tree with its roots in present-day France.  But what the BQ has never lacked – and what really has fuelled its political history – is just plain gall.  The report this week from La Presse, that former BQ leader and defeated Member of Parliament Gilles Duceppe paid his party’s general manager with House of Commons funds – up to $100,000 annually for seven years – is just another example of how this traitorous party has no business conducting the nation’s business; no reason to occupy seats in the House of Commons except to advance a separatist agenda while collecting a pay cheque and furnishing a pension that are provided by the very country that they are so desperately trying to destroy.

It is difficult to imagine another country where a separatist party can not only sit in the federal legislature but has the mind boggling nerve to spend public money on its private agenda.

There are still four of these misplaced Quebec MPPs taking up space in the House of Commons – one less member than required for official party status – so they will not be paying anyone 100 grand a year with public funds but we will be better off when the last of Bloc head is retired.

Writing the cheerless history of the Bloc is a journey through outrageous entitlement.  Let this latest installment in the BQ Story be the final chapter.

At least there was unanimous party condemnation of the arrangement, with the Conservatives, Liberals and NDP agreeing that this was not public money well spent.  When it comes to criticizing the Bloc, it has been difficult in the past to rouse any sort of emotion approaching outrage, disgust or disapproval from the NDP.  For left-thinking socialists, the trough of tolerance for “progressive,” language-embattled Quebec is deep.  The NDP reserves its contempt for anything or anybody standing in the way of its social reengineering project; it could never quite accept the existence of the Reform Party for instance, as if Preston Manning and his fellow MPs should never have shaken up the ideological status quo in Ottawa.

Perhaps the NDP has discovered a growing antagonism towards the BQ because the effervescence of the “Orange Crush” that seemed so perky in Quebec in the last election has gone flat.  According to a CROP poll this week, this post-election burp has reduced the NDP from 53 per cent support last June to just 29 per cent today.  Though the Conservatives are in second place with 24 per cent, the Bloc is not far behind with 22.  Thus the fight for the hard left vote in Quebec has been defined and, if these numbers remain relatively constant, the next election contest should prove to be a tightly contested four-way fight.

Surely, the NDP did not really believe that it could reelect the entirety of its Quebec caucus, this curious assortment of MPs, many of whom never dreamed of sitting in the House of Commons, and at least one of whom never even bothered to campaign. But it will certainly aspire to repeat this electoral phenomenon and it will strive to outdo the separatists in promising Quebec all manner of special status in Confederation and increased protection of its language, culture and way of life – one that includes massive government spending, higher unemployment than the rest of Canada, low productivity and the highest percentage of part-time workers and absentee employees on the continent.

Whether Quebec votes for soft or hard separatism, it is time that the province joined the rest of the country in the economic realities of the twenty-first century.  Many in Quebec are cognizant of this reality and some of the best conservative thinking resides in that province.  Listen to the economic thinking of Quebec MP  (and former foreign affairs minister) Maxime Bernier and you might be listening to one vying for the presidential nomination of the Republican Party.  Hopefully, in the next election, instead of sending 59 MPs to warm the seats in Parliament, they will choose free-enterprise alternatives who have come to Ottawa to get on with the nation’s business and work for a Quebec that is free, prosperous and equal with every other province.

David Krayden is the executive director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Studies, an independent, not-for-profit institution dedicated to the advancement of freedom and prosperity through the development and promotion of good public policy.

Liberals Having a Wonderful Time: David Krayden

Posted on by

By David Krayden

They already have an NDP interim leader in Bob Rae and now the Liberal Party of Canada will have NDP policies to match. The Grits are meeting this weekend at a policy convention in Ottawa to define themselves – yet again. In its attempt to compete with the socialists for best left-wing performance by a political party, the Liberals are offering a plethora of nonsensical policy initiatives: Resolution #101 encourages Canadians to “minimize reliance on the use of liquid petroleum for transportation,” which I suppose means shutting down the gas pumps. Foreign policy? Forget armed intervention in places like Afghanistan, the Liberals argue in Resolution #64 that we should “create a strategy dedicated to promoting a culture of peace and non-violence” on the world stage. Want to confuse and collectivize our rights even further? Resolution #60 demands “gender-based hate crimes.” Of course you knew that the delegates would want to “legalize and regulate marijuana” (#117) and (#44) strangle ethical oil with another redundant “comprehensive public assessment of the environmental, economic and social impacts of the oil sands developments immediately.”

These might be described as heady days for the Liberals. They just enjoyed the fruits of a political defection this week as former NDP MP Lise St-Denis crossed the floor from a floundering ship to a sinking one. Though Lise may be forgiven for losing interest in the Neo Democrats since half the caucus is away running in an interminable party leadership campaign and those that remain in the House of Commons don’t seem to have the first notion of what the place is all about when they aren’t trying to introduce nonsense legislation like the recent attempt to create a “Department of Peace.” Uh huh. Leave it to the NDP.

But can the Grits be far behind with the kind of policy resolutions like the ones above? Unlike the NDP, who can’t seem to end its leadership race, the Liberals can’t seem to begin. And so we have “interim” party leader Rae, presiding over a policy convention that will not address his leadership. Ever the optimist and sometimes a good comedian Rae kicked off the Liberal love fest by exclaiming:

“This does not look to me like a party that is on its last legs.” If you say so, Bob. Always ready to believe the best, the Toronto Star reported that these immortal words were spoken as Rae “looked out on hundreds of Liberals packed into a ballroom for the weekend convention kickoff.” Hundreds were packed into the room? Were they meeting in a ballroom or a phone booth?

One of the favourite buttons so far is one that reads “Rebuild it and they will come,” which makes a poetic allusion to the baseball flick, “Field of Dreams.” A more appropriate movie reference may be the teaser from the 1986 remake of the Fly: “Be afraid. Be very afraid.”

Continuing on the same theme, if this convention, with all its odd combination of confusion and bluster, serves to rebrand the Liberal Party, it will as the NDP Part II. Never mind a leadership campaign, the Libs should just stay with Bobby Rae, the former Ontario premier that everyone loves to forget. Until the Liberals decide whether they want to be another socialist party or something approaching support for free enterprise, they would be well advised too put off a leadership campaign indefinitely since no one seems to anxious to inherit the bits and pieces of the shambles that now define what was once a powerful Canadian political institution.

David Krayden is the executive director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Studies, an independent, not-for-profit institution dedicated to the advancement of freedom and prosperity through the development and promotion of good public policy.

Social Justice vs. Charity (Humanism vs. Biblical Christianity)

Posted on by

By Tim Bloedow

Our commentary is with the square brackets throughout this letter, published in Tuesday’s Prince Edward Island paper, the Charlottetown Guardian.

The Charlottetown Guardian – November 29, 2011
Letter: Improving your community with both social justice and charity
By Cathy Ronahan
Editor:
As the Christmas season approaches, many Island residents will be looking for ways to help someone in their communities. Many families have a long tradition of giving to the food bank or the turkey drive.
This is noble. However, simply giving charity to families and individuals in need in Prince Edward Island does not resolve the problem of impoverishment. Focusing on charity creates a system of unequal power. [This statement demonstrates the inherent dishonesty in Humanism. The "Unequal power" already existed. That's why these people need help. Belittling charity with this rhetoric demonstrates corruption or gross ignorance. "Unequal power" is typically due to a mix of one's heritage and the decisions made by a person, and by influential people around them, up to that point in their lives. In the real world, these realities produce different results from one person to the next. Humanists, with their formulaic, sterile ideology, despise this inequality of outcome. In order to avoid appearing as the revolutionary extremists they are, Humanists want to link their views back to an untamed natural world, unpolluted by human interference. This is why this woman has to claim that the inequality was created by other people in their attempts to help those in need. Any attempt to link their status to any kind of "natural" forces is a threat to their worldview. At any rate, who cares about "unequal power"? Why is power the first issue this writer addresses? Because power is a primary issue for Humanists/Socialists. But humility is a primary issue for Christians. There is no compatibility between Biblical Christian thinking and Humanism on such points.] It also engenders attitudes of pity. [So what? Of course Socialists find pity to be a demeaning attitude or expression because it implies inequality, and the most important component of their ideology is what they call equality, but which is really parity of outcome, or sameness of results. You will recognize this as the ideology of multiculturalism and the ideology of androgyny. It's the ideology behind affirmative action and group rights. It's the ideology behind feminism, homosexual rights and now the "transgendered" movement. Pity is part of a healthy attitude of compassion towards others. But there is no room for compassion in the Humanist worldview. Humanists are about robotic, formulaic solutions that centre around bureaucracy and institutionalization. There's no room for individuality, dignity or humanity in their worldview. Any Humanist who practices compassion is inconsistent with his worldview; he is stealing from Christianity in his attempt to live a respectable life in the real world.]
On the other hand, if we are able to take action to change the system that has put these families and individuals into poverty, [See, it's the human system that is to blame for heir poverty, not their own decisions; not the decisions of influential others such as their parents; not any "natural" aspect of the context into which they were born. The solution is central planning and a return to nature, eliminating the unequal results produced by free decision-makers and non-state actors.] then we can live in a society that better values every citizen.
Shifting our thinking to the social justice model of eliminating poverty provides dignity for people living in poverty. [The Humanist definition of dignity is antithetical to the Christian definition and bears no resemblance to the latter, as noted with the previous comments above.] It creates a real hope for ending the cycle. [The "social justice" model has been imposed on every western nation, and many other countries, over the past two generations and it has entrenched poverty and increased misery, rather than alleviating it. Humanistic zeal may blind its radical adherents to the effects of their worldview, but responsible governors will acknowledge what their eyes tell them, and they will terminate these destructive experiments on their citizens, instead of expanding them.] It challenges us to acknowledge how our ‘help’ may be humiliating and to find ways of standing with and for people who are impoverished. [You stand with and for them if you "teach them to fish" while also, with accountability, providing them a limited amount of "fish" if they are in genuine need. The best accountability mechanisms encourage and require work, even to the point of indentured servitude if necessary, within the framework of discipleship/apprenticeship to train the impoverished into right thinking and a marketable skill, with the hope that they will also, if necessary, be converted. This requires intensive human involvement and sacrificial investment in people's lives. This may be humiliating or humbling at first for the recipient. That is a good thing, not bad. We all need more humility. This is the antithesis of the centrally managed, bureaucratic, anti-septic "social justice" approach envisioned by humanists who want to provide material goods in a way that doesn't make the needy feel bad about taking a hand-out, and in a way that doesn't require the Humanist "getting his hands dirty" in the person-to-person business of real charity.]
Lilla Watson, an Indigenous Australian academic, emphasises this as follows: “If you have come here to help me, then you are wasting your time. But if you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together.”
The P.E.I. Working Group for Livable Income (WGLI) is encouraged by the provincial government’s commitment to developing a poverty reduction strategy. This strategy will include ways to change the systems that put almost 3,000 Island families in need of a Christmas dinner.
We encourage Island residents to not only buy the turkey or give to the food bank but to sit down with friends and family this holiday season to talk about the real causes of poverty.
A positive action recognizing the social justice model would be to write Premier Ghiz premier@gov.pe.ca and the minister of community services and seniors, Valerie Docherty vedocherty@gov.pe.ca to support them in taking decisive action to eliminate poverty on Prince Edward Island. [This statement dramatically illustrates the blindness God imposes on the hearts of the godless. Only the Humanist mind could, with a straight face, recommend as humane, dignifying and positive, the writing of letters to politicians instead of the investment of time and effort and creative energy in finding the poor in your neighbourhood and working with neighbours, churches, business owners and other organizations to address their needs. Critics will say, "Both...and, Both...and." Nonsense! Humanists like this woman don't want "Both...and." She wants a "social justice" model to prevail. Christians also need to see that "Both...and" wastes resources with distracting, unproductive activity. These efforts never produce a reward commensurate with the "investment" made in running after politicians and bureaucrats to secure stolen taxpayer dollars towards work that should be done by the Church, individuals, business owners and community groups. Writing letters to politicians may well be a positive action within the "social justice" model, but this simply illustrates the utter moral and intellectual bankruptcy of that model of "charity" and social reform.]
A comprehensive poverty reduction strategy in place will mean that no one in P.E.I. will need charity at any time of the year.
Cathy Ronahan, P.E.I. Working Group for Livable Income

Let’s assume all liberals are clinically insane: Tom Bartlett

Posted on by

By Tom Bartlett

In my last article, I addressed the contrast between the “Tea Party” movement and the liberal answer found in the “Occupy” movement. It is striking to hear occupiers and their advocates defending environmentalists trashing parks and defecating in public; pacifists engaging in acts of aggression; promoters of sexual freedom engaging in sexual assaults and rape; anti-capitalists using social networks and technology to “spread the word,” defenders of the poor kicking the homeless out of their food lines, and supporters of wealth redistribution decrying the theft of their costly personal property. If liberals actually lived out what they claim to stand for – they’d be conservatives.
Perhaps the biggest area of departure between these two sides is in how we come to view and understand the world. The disparity and methodology could not be starker.

When liberals embrace a position, they adopt a premise that they quickly transmute into a “fact” with absolutely no vetting process. That’s a lot of chutzpah from a group that perpetually maintains that truth is subjective. There are dire consequences that arise from their self-ordained “superior” worldview when it comes to enforcement. Let me explain what I mean:

A liberal expert postulates, “Let’s assume that homosexuality and heterosexuality are equivalent.” Their assertion is not based on newly discovered scientific research unseating our formerly held beliefs that homosexuality is a disorder was based on false assumptions and is borne of prejudice. Instead, the shaping of opinion is primarily the product of social pressure and a carefully orchestrated promotional campaign by homosexual activists. Claims that there is a “gay gene” and the assertion that homosexuality is genetically-predetermined become truisms without any substantiating evidence.

The issue is then redefined as one of prejudice. Dissenters from the unproven thesis are automatically deemed “homophobic” and the pro-homosexuality view becomes the new morality. Ill-informed among the oxymoronic “liberal Christian “contingent contort reality to the point of failing to distinguish between the sinner and the sin. They fail to recognise that they have rejected the core values that their faith system is supposed to be founded on.

Homosexual behaviour becomes noble and those defending biblical truth become the enemy. Unlike Christians who recognise that loving the homosexual is as scripturally commanded as is opposition to homosexual behaviour; these “enlightened believers” endorse the behaviour and hate the followers of Christ – in the name of compassion. They essentially conclude that their moral standards are above God’s

These secular humanists are not content to stop there, but ensure that their newly minted “replacement reality” becomes legally and governmentally sanctioned and enforced. Homosexual marriage must be adopted as a core right. Hate crimes legislation and forced promotion of the homosexual lifestyle is mandatorily integrated into their “values-free” public school curricula. With elevated levels of suicide, depression, addiction, and similar high-risk behaviours among homosexuals, they believe anti-bullying initiative strictly focused on homosexual protections must be put into effect and the problems will end.

I’d like to challenge the thesis and suggest “let’s assume homosexual activity is, as the bible asserts, sinful.” Given this revised premise, the interpretation of the situation can now be evaluated in a new light.

First, there is a way to answer those who claim that rights should narrowly be expanded to include homosexual, transgendered, and other selected groups and individuals. When there is no science guiding the revised standards, there is no way to answer why those who favour pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, rape, or any other perversion are not merely marginalized for their unique preferences for satisfying their sexual urges. They do not swing the door completely open, but merely change the I.D. requirements. Those under the rainbow of acceptance enter while others now classified as deviants – including Christians – are tossed out the back door.

Next, there is a Christian defence against self-destructive lifestyle choices. A Christian recognises that living against God’s standards will not bring peace and therefore, what may be a temptation or predisposition is not an excuse to indulge in what lures us. All of us have sins that have a stronger pull and that we can’t make it all better by insisting that God is wrong for not lowering his standards. Instead, resisting sin is what increases our reliance on God, brings us joy, and conforms us to his image.

Finally, lifestyle risks are not assumed to not stem from attacks by Christian mobs, but may be the result of emotional wounding. This suggests that no amount of re-education or endorsement of sinful behaviour will bring joy or peace. As such, the well-intentioned “tolerance” message from public sector secularists or do-gooder pseudo-Christians only makes people more comfortable in their self-destructive ways and keeps them separated from Christ. This explains why social re-engineering has not changed this devastating trajectory and why most self-destructive behaviours are linked to family break-ups, the pursuit of hedonism, and personal moral failures.
The difference is that Christians don’t seek to impose our will, but invite others to choose a different path.

Click here to read Tom’s bio.

Symptoms of Rot in Our Nation’s Capital: David Krayden

Posted on by

By David Krayden

Ottawa may be the seat of a federal government that is currently Conservative but it is also a city in the province of Ontario, which can sometimes be a politically correct wasteland that eschews the military and applauds aimless and nonsensical political protest. Such is the case this week.

Case in point: Notre Dame High School has just decided to end an annual Remembrance Day ceremony where veterans displayed artifacts from the Second World War: largely rifles and jeeps but certainly – despite the misinformation from people who wouldn’t know the difference between a Sherman and a Mustang – not tanks. Can you just imagine trying to bring a tank to a schoolyard? But that is precisely how silly the objections to this educational opportunity have become. Some are objecting to the tanks that were not even there.

But this decision is far from silly. It is a travesty and represents a haughty indifference to Remembrance Day and all it represents. This is surely a slap in the face of veterans who give of their time in the present day in order that teenagers might begin to grasp just a little of what Second World War soldiers, sailors and airmen had to endure. This is an insult to the men who fought and died overseas so many years ago so that a school board in 2011 can proclaim their indifference to that sacrifice. This represents the banality of political correctness: weapons are intrinsically evil and can only inspire menace; therefore, hide the weapons. Yet if it were not for those armaments from 1939-45 we would have been eradicated by Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan and would not be arguing over whether it is a good thing or a bad thing for veterans to show how weapons helped them win the most significant war in history. We would have lost that war.

I don’t hear the students objecting. I am not aware of any teenager being so affected by the display of a war relic that he or she went out and committed a crime. Lord knows, there is more violence in the movies these kids watch and the computer games they play than an octogenarian veteran describes in a dozen Remembrance Day presentations. No the school board is objecting, apparently because some students from “war torn” countries were adversely affected by the weapons display. It is perhaps more accurate to state that the politically correct members of the board had their notions of the world adversely affected by this presentation.

And why is that? For years, the left has tried to hijack Remembrance Day and make it a celebration of pacifism. The folks who are trying to unleash the “white poppy” on us are part of this ilk. Let us understand this: Remembrance Day is not jingoistic celebration of war and conquest but neither is it an occasion to proclaim peace at any price. Our veterans were not fools, stooges or programmed robots to fight tyranny; they were heroes. Canadians fought in wars because it was necessary to do so and because they believed enough in the democratic freedoms of their nation to put their lives on the line. We don’t remember the folly of war on November 11; we remember that war is sometimes regrettably necessary and that some must make the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of us all. That is the lesson of Remembrance Day and it should also remind us that wars can only be avoided if aggressors are contained by democratic nations with a strong national defence. That was what these veterans were trying to teach the students at Notre Dame. They didn’t relish taking up a gun or dropping a bomb or throwing a grenade or sinking a U-Boat but, by God, they did it because it was necessary to do so. If a little hands-on instruction with real, but non-functioning, weaponry underlines that point, then no school board – if it truly desires to avoid future global conflicts – should be blocking that.

All of this so ironic. As veterans are pushed out a school, professional protestors are breaking a dozen municipal laws everyday as they “occupy” Confederation Park. While the legalities are ignored, we are even providing these squatters with free electricity, which will only encourage long term camping on public land. Veterans be damned and professional protestors who cannot even articulate a coherent political message are welcome.

That’s Ottawa for you.

David Krayden is the executive director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Studies, an independent, not-for-profit institution dedicated to the advancement of freedom and prosperity through the development and promotion of good public policy.

Greece Looks Another Gift Horse in the Mouth: Rod Taylor

Posted on by

By Rod Taylor, Deputy Leader of the CHP

The secular proverb that most of us heard while growing up was: “Never look a gift horse in the mouth.”  The underlying thought was: “Be grateful for what is offered to you. If it’s a gift, don’t be quick to complain.” Gratitude and contentment, after all, are virtues which our society sometimes seems to lack.

However, some students of history and language have said this bit of advice is a distortion of the original adjuration which was: “ALWAYS look a gift horse in the mouth.” They say this word of warning refers to the mythical Trojan Horse, the large wooden horse left behind deceitfully by the Greeks when they had failed to conquer the city of Troy by more conventional means. As the legend goes, the Trojans accepted the gift horse, “without looking in its mouth.” Greek warriors were hidden inside and after the horse was drawn within the city gates, the hidden warriors emerged at night to conquer the city. This interpretation lines up more closely with the modern idea of “no free lunch” or “you get what you pay for.”

Whatever the origins of the legend or the proverb it is clear that Greeks know something about the undesired consequence of an otherwise attractive plan of action. For years now, since the adoption of the Euro, their economy has been in decline, not perhaps so much as a direct result of the Euro but as a byproduct of assuming that their inclusion within the Eurozone offered some immunity from historical and natural laws of economics.

Her people have been led to believe that prosperity can be mandated, not earned and the rebellion now squeezing PM Papandreou between a catastrophic debt-determined national bankruptcy and riots verging on revolution is fueled by the harsh face-off between unrealistic expectations and the laws of economics that operate without the consent of the governed.

Greece has borrowed too much for too long and with no realistic plan to repay. Many of Greece’s citizens have gotten used to a 35-hour work week and they chafe under the government mandate, laid down in August, of returning to a 40-hour work week. As in many other western nations, public service employees (“fixed costs” by some definitions) enjoy wages 40% higher than their private sector counterparts who – of course – have to pay exactly the same for a loaf of bread or a litre of fuel.

So now, after a hard-fought battle that had real economic casualties of confidence – not only in Greece, but around the world – the Greek PM astounded the world with signals that he would put the 2nd big bailout to a public referendum. He may have thought this move would silence his critics by giving them an opportunity to accept or reject the offer of more loans and grants and the forgiveness of up to half of its bank debts. But in this case, there was not appetite for “looking a gift horse in the mouth”. Those who wanted to complain wanted to continue to complain and those who wanted a return to the unrealistic wages and working conditions would accept nothing less. The global financiers meanwhile, having talked themselves into a fit of exasperated generosity were highly offended and confused when their offer was not immediately seized.

If only Greece were a single teetering economy in a sea of stability! The shock waves of this trembling hesitation are felt the stronger because of the somber realization that similar Trojan Horses are already within the walls of most national economies. How and when their underbellies open and the hidden destroyers come forth to lay waste to the proud economies of the West is yet for the history books to record…if they will be so honest.

Click here to learn more about Rod Taylor.