Columnist and blogger Michelle Malkin has been blogging the rescue of the Chilean miners, noting the contributions of Americans in the remarkable event. From “Celebrating American greatness…in Chile”:

10:01 AM EST In a different day and age, Jeff Hart would be the most famous American in our country right now. He would be honored at the White House. Schoolchildren would learn of his skill and heroism. But because Jeff Hart works in an industry under fire by the Obama administration, more people in Chile will celebrate this symbol of American greatness than in America itself.

Jeff Hart is a driller based in my home state of Colorado. The father of two has been drilling water wells in Afghanistan at U.S. Army bases. When the San Jose Mine in Chile collapsed in August, he flew to lend his renowned expertise to the rescue effort. As part of an amazing three-way race to the trapped miners, Hart drilled for 33 days straight and was first to reach the caved-in workers. The AP recounts the story — and what strikes me again and again is how the world turned to American ingenuity and American fortitude and American equipment and American enterprise to get the job done.”

Subsequently, Malkin notes the statement from President Obama: “Our thoughts and prayers are with the brave miners, their families, and the men and women who have been working so hard to rescue them.  While that rescue is far from over and difficult work remains, we pray that by God’s grace, the miners will be able to emerge safely and return to their families soon. We are also proud of all of the Americans who have been working with our Chilean friends on the ground to do everything that we can to bring these miners home.”

There are plenty of things to celebrate in this rescue, and many people to thank. Beyond the fortitude of the miners and their rescuers, we marvel at the technology that saved these men’s lives. Ten years ago, certainly 20, they would have all been dead.

Columnist and blogger Michelle Malkin is the harshest, most unremitting journalistic critic of the federal involvement/aid to various sectors of the economy (like so many, indiscriminately calling them all “bailouts”), and the UAW is one of her many targets. For all the many good points she makes about UAW golf courses, spending and corruption today in her syndicated column, “The UAW’s money-squandering corruptocracy,” we’d also like to hightlight this one:

Curious about how the UAW will be spending my money and yours, I sifted through the union’s most recent annual report filed with the U.S. Department of Labor (which you can find at unionreports.gov). Who knew hitting the links was so central to the business of making cars?

Malkin was able to write an informative and damning column because of reports made available through the Department of Labor. She and other journalists, the public, and union members have all benefited from Labor’s concerted efforts to improve union transparency, most carried out through the Office of Labor Management Standards and including such sites as unionreports.gov.  With all major players in the U.S. economy under increased scrutiny and unions hoping to create a more static, less responsive labor market through the Employee Free Choice Act, maintaining oversight and transparency are critical.

Yet there are many indications that the Department of Labor in the next Administration will head in the other direction, the wrong direction. As the Wall Street Journal reported in a recent editorial, “Quantum of Solis“:

From day one of the Obama era, union leaders want the lights dimmed on how they spend their mandatory member dues. The AFL-CIO’s representative on the Obama transition team for Labor is Deborah Greenfield, and we’re told her first inspection stop was the Office of Labor-Management Standards, or OLMS, which monitors union compliance with federal law.

Ms. Greenfield declined to comment, citing Obama transition rules, but her mission is clear enough. The AFL-CIO’s formal “recommendations” to the Obama team call for the realignment of “the allocation of budgetary resources” from OLMS to other Labor agencies. The Secretary should “temporarily stay all financial reporting regulations that have not gone into effect,” and “revise or rescind the onerous and unreasonable new requirements,” such as the LM-2 and T-1 reporting forms. The explicit goal is to “restore the Department of Labor to its mission and role of advocating for, protecting and advancing the interests of workers.” In other words, while transparency is fine for business, unions are demanding a pass for themselves.

Along similar lines, Mark Tapscott of The Examiner asks if the (very vocal) liberal advocates of transparency and open government will speak up on behalf of the OLMS and Labor’s transparency initiatives.

Organized labor’s leaders sure hold idiosyncratic views about secrecy, don’t they? With the Employee Free Choice Act, they would destroy secret-ballot elections so organizers can force unwilling workers into unions. But in attacking Department of Labor union transparency rules, labor bosses would restore and extend secrecy into union operations so they can spend members’ dues however they want.

Both issues — the Employee Free Choice Act and union transparency — are early tests of an Obama Administration and its views on accountability, transparency and the importance of a dynamic market economy. We certainly hope the decisionmaking is carried out in a transparent way.

Along with the financial retrenching (or is it retranching?) bill, the other hot topic on the political blogs today is Gwen Ifill being the moderator of Thursday’s vice presidential debate. Turns out Ifill is writing a book about Senator Obama as an historic figure of American politics, leading to a reasonable-enough conclusion that she prefers the Democratic nominee.  Michelle Malkin has the toughest critique.

Clearly Ms. Ifill needs to demonstrate her independence by being a fair and tough questioner of both candidates.

In the case of Governor Palin, she can ask probing foreign policy questions or even inquire into Alaska’s reliance on federal government spending, earmarks, etc. Find out how the Governor differs from Senator McCain on global warming. All fair game.

And for Senator Biden, we recommend Ms. Ifill delve into the topic of tort reform, that is, the need to fix a legal system that imposes unnecessary and unjust costs on individuals, companies and the economy.

In fact, the Wall Street Journal’s opinion writers have already prepared the ground for Ms. Ifill in a piece today, “Biden & Partners“:

A remarkable political fact of Mr. Biden’s career is that his top campaign contributor is SimmonsCooper, a law firm in Madison County, Illinois, of all places. Aficionados of tort law will understand. SimmonsCooper is a big asbestos player, and Madison County was until recently one of America’s meccas for jackpot justice. But the story gets better: Mr. Biden has been helping the tort bar turn his home state of Delaware into a statewide Madison County.

But Madison County has been cleaning up its act, so the asbestos lawfirms have taken their litigation to Delaware, spending generously on political candidates in the process. What to do?

The trial bar’s strategy has been to overwhelm Delaware’s once-sensible legal system, taking advantage of rules that pressure companies to settle. In the 22 months following SimmonsCooper’s first asbestos filing in Delaware, the state was hit with 412 suits, primarily from SimmonsCooper and fellow asbestos giant Baron & Budd.

So, questions:

Senator Biden, you recently said at a political fundraiser hosted by the national trial lawyers lobby that you’ve “done more than any other senator combined” for trial lawyers. You added, “There are two people — you’ve heard me say it before — two groups that stand between us and the barbarians at the gate. It’s you and organized labor. That’s it. That is it. So, mark my words, mark my words, if we lose this election, you are going to continue to see a continuation of the onslaught on everything we care about.”

• Senator, who are these barbarians? When you speak of “doing” for the trial lawyers, what do you mean? Blocking tort reform at the federal level? Stopping the confirmation of “rule of law” judges? Do you think these positions have any impact on U.S. economic competitiveness?
• What do you think of the growing role of the asbestos litigators in Delaware? Do you think they help accomplish justice?
• Over the past year we have seen the conviction of some of the most prominent trial attorneys in the country, Dickie Scruggs, Bill Lerach, Mel Weiss and others, suggesting a business model built on corruption. Aren’t they the real barbarians at the gate?

Be tough and fair to both candidates, Ms. Ifill. Your journalistic reputation depends on it.