JJ McCullough: Arbiter of Socialism:

Which is some strange ideology which seems to encompass everything that ever veers left of McKenna Liberalism.

Let's see what Mr. McCullough Had to say about David Orchard's possible Liberal leadership run yesterday:

Also showing an interest is David Orchard, who is this weird socialist activist with an extraordinarily intense pathological hatred of the United States and free trade. Orchard is what they call an "entryist," namely a guy who tries to take control of things he should not be taking control of. He repeatedly tried to get elected leader of the old Progressive Conservative Party, for example.

Not withstanding the fact that he finished second each time, I wondered what the internet thought about Entryism, Anti-Americanism, and Socialism when searched for in conjunction with another Canadian politician: Pierre Trudeau.

When I search "Pierre Trudeau" on www.google.ca I get about 587,000 hits.

When I search "David Orchard" I get 363,000. Therefore if the ratio of "Pierre Trudeau" + X to "David Orchard" + X is 587/363 (About 1.6 or 8 to 5) or greater, Pierre is considered by the vox poppuli to be more X than David Orchard. Agreed? Good.

When Searching "Weird Socialist Activist" David: 16 Pierre: 229 about 15 to 1

When Searching "Hatred" + "United States" David: 4510 Pierre: 22,400 about 5 to 1

When Searching "Entryist" David: 102 Pierre: 6

This last one I will concede. People think David Orchard is an entryist. However, given that Mr. Orchard made his decision to first seek the PC leadership after talking political history with Pierre Trudeau one might simply say that the old dog was never one for good optics, which he proved when he took the leadership of a party that he had spurned his entire life time previously.

So was David Orchard a PC entryist when he'd never run for another party, but Pierre Trudeau who ran as an NDP'er, vocally criticised Pearson as the, "defrocked priest of peace," and proceeded to serve as his justice minister is not? Sure thing JJ.

Also David shaved that most Canadian of 'staches three years ago. Pity. And he's over six feet tall. So I don't know why you continue to draw him as some sort of bespectacled midget.

I suppose it's the Joe Clark effect. Joe was actually a few inches taller than Pierre Trudeau, but don't tell that to anyone who followed the era.

So yeah, JJ. Do the legwork, study the issues, and don't let Rod Love do your backgrounders. Oh, and JJ if you'd like equal time here at ISMHWRSD you're welcome to it.

McCullough Classiness update:

In response to a picture of Alberta PC Leadership contender Mark Norris JJ had this to say to me on MSN:

"Obese!"
"I hope he wins he'll be so much easier to draw [than Jim Dinning]"

Classy Mr. McCullough You're lucky you draw so damn well.

I wanted to talk about boycotting Morrissey, but I can't. It's a constitutional thing:

So the Prime Minister in his firm grasp of the nature of Canadian politics states that the Cabinet doesn't legally have to inform people of when they are meeting. How does he claim this right to cabinet secrecy?

"It's a constitutional thing."

Well, sure I agree with the right of Cabinet to have full and frank in camera discussions at which point they can disclose as much or as little about the meeting they see fit. That is indeed a constiutional thing.

But you know what else is a constitutional thing? Disuetude. The right of Cabinet to not disclose the very fact that it is meeting has long since been forefeit by the government. You know why? They never invoke it! That's disuetude.

Just another constitutional thing brought to you by the good person at ISMHWRSD. I'm sure it'll catch on.

150th Entry at I Shaved My Head When Robert Stanfield Died? I Just Passed Strongbad's Email Total? I think I'll Celebrate with that Promised Analysis of Stanfield's 1971 Speech to the Empire Club:

Behold, the wisdom of Red Toryism!

Stanfield on the Economy:

"I think we can sum up the economic challenge that faces us in one question. What is the direction in which our economy must go if it is to provide our workers with jobs, our children with opportunities and our people with an acceptable standard of living? That is the fundamental question we must answer. "

Yes! He goes on to say that economic growth is a means to this end. Nothing about competing with emerging market, paradigm, or other assorted BS. People gotta eat and we gotta get 'em food. Of course that'd be Alvin Hamilton's speaking style but you get the drift.

Stanfield on the 'Special Relationship'

In the past, we have been cushioned against the full impact of United States trading decisions. It was assumed in Ottawa that our two countries were involved in a very special relationship. And Washington very often acted as though this were the case. So, even though we occasionally complained that we were being taken for granted, we lived with the comfortable feeling that, regardless of what else might happen, the United States would always consider our interests as well as its own.

Sure, deal with the Americans, but remember the difference between neighbours and family. There is no 'special relationship,' only exigencies of geography.

Stanfield on the state:

Big government will not disappear. That is obvious. But there must be a realization that the purpose of any government, large or small, must be to serve the people, not to serve itself.

Libertarians and neo-classicalists who desire to have the state wound down betray conservative traditions. They are right wing, not conservative.

Finally, without accompanying commentary from me: Stanfield on Canadian Nationalism:

It has been said that what matters most are a people's knowledge that they have done great things in the past and their hope to do greater in the future. We in Canada have accomplished great things in knitting together half a continent. And we are capable of doing much more. We have a common destiny, and our challenge is to fulfill that destiny.
That is what Canadian nationalism means to me. And in that sense I am proud to be a Canadian nationalist.

Oh, Come on, You knew this would happen:

David Orchard Mulling run at Liberal Leadership.

So let's look at this rationally. First thing to ask David: Why?

Because there are no symetrical, centralist, federalist, NAFTA skeptics running, who put their money where their mouth is wheen it comes to issues of sustainability. I don't even know if there are any symetrical federalists running.

Why now? Why not Months ago when you had an organisation to get together?

David is very lucky in this respect. He has an organisation of former PC's who were already inclined to support the Liberals over the Conservatives. By waiting he's lost some to the NDP, Conservatives, PCs, and Greens, but given the polling numbers he would probably have about 6,000 of his previous 10,000 activists who would have no compunction about joining the Liberals and in addition those other 4000 might have to think hard about making the switch too.

Who inside the existing party would support him?

Red Tories who already made the switch, Turner Liberals, Modernists, who are often seen as the party's soft social conservative wing, Hard Quebec Federalists, who are willing to combat as opposed to accomodate separatists, Neo-Trudeauites. Finally his conversations with Pierre Trudeau about which party to join would come in handy as opposed to making him look like a fish out of water. Let's not forget that the country was intitially ruled by a liberal-conservative coalition.

Which camps, and factions could David Orchard draw support from before the convention?

Get David Orchard up on a platform debating Belinda Stronach, Scott Brison, and Michael Ignatief and we could see David serve as a lightning rod for the party's nationalists.

If Orchard comes to convention with a sizeable chunk of support, won't he run out of growing room?

This assumes that the Liberals are of one mind on NAFTA. He softwood dispute has brushed away the veil on how the Americans respect agreements and Liberals realise that it probably wouldn't cost much to pull out of or at least renegotiate NAFTA and it would probably be beneficial to the Canadian economy to get the muscle of the WTO back behind it. David Orchard is seen as a refugee, not a pariah in this party.

So what sequence of events could actually cause an Orchard victory at convention?

1. Ignatief loses a lot of uncommitted delegates with a lackluster speech that reads well, but confuses, or even worse, alienates quite a few Liberal insiders who were backing Ignatief based on his saleability not his ideas.

2. Bob Rae's campaign fizzles in Ontario, the NDP keeps their activists away from his campaign in the West, and Ken Dryden, or better yet, John Godfrey picks a fight with Rae over his record.

3. Brison's campaign picks up the Bay Street right of the party, but doesn't retain a lot of PCs.

So what would David have to do on the first ballot?

Beat Dryden + Godfrey, and take 20 percent. David doesn't have to outrun the bear, he just has to outrun one of his opponents on the perceived 'left' of the party.

What happens next?

Godfrey drops out and moves to DrydenDryden drops off, and his supporters go to David. Then Rae's supporters find that Orchard is a better bet than Stronach to achieve their policy ends so they break heaviliy for Orchard.

Does this remind you of anyone?

Yeah.

Oil in the engine:

Remember the hyper inflation of the 70's and 80's? Sure you do. Anyway it was pretty bad for our economy, because it weakened the dollar and made capital more expensive to import. Also it drove people out of stocks and into bonds. These things are signs of economic decline. So now we have moderate, predictable sustainable inflation between 1-3% per year. Now the National Post wants the inflation rate to go even lower, possibly as low as 0%. Well great, we must think. If lowering inflation a little is good, then lowering it even further will be excellent.

That, ladies and gentlemen is the same logic used by John Crow in 1990 and it was an exascerbating factor in the '90 recession and the jobless recovery that followed. An economy needs a certain amount of inflation so that prices can change more readily, relative to one another reflecting changes in demand and input costs. This brings us to the metaphor of the oil. Just as an engine will run poorly with too much oil running between parts, thus creating extraneous motion, our economic engine will run poorly with too little economic lubrication (inflation) causing prices to stick until they face massive correction.

Keep the economy moving. Keep inflation.

Quick Question:

If Health Care is so unsustainable in Alberta, then how come it's rising slower than program spending? The latest Alberta budget calls for an 8% increase in program spending and a 7.5% increase in health spending. This is the disater that the aging population hath wrought? Looks just fine to me.

Wow. It's been a while hasn't it folks?

I still really have nothing new to comment on. Other than the fact that for a government to lose 1 dollar in every ten thousand to corruption is fantastically good and that as long as the Saskatchewan party holds the PC name hostage I won't be supporting them.

Also an ex-pat Canadian / registered Republican has called my criticism of the United States measured. To my fellow disco nationalists, I apologise. But in all seriousness, I don't hate America, I just shudder at the thought of implementing their political and economic culture and continually attempt to remind my American readers (I'm as surprised as you are) that what makes the good guys moral is that they play by the rules.

So, in conclusion, I'm going to have a look at the Stanfield speech shortly and give my analysis later, but until then I leave you with a quotation from Sir George Etienne Cartier:

"It is necessary, at times, to be a little anti-yankee."

And from Will Ferguson:

"If America is exhibitionist, Canada is voyeur. Our fetishes mesh nicely."

I know I'm moving fast, but this is heavy stuff:

"I did not join the British Army to conduct American foreign policy,"

-Ben Griffin SAS Officer.

Mr. Griffin said he had witnessed, "dozens of illegal acts," by US troops, claiming they viewed all Iraqis as "untermenschen" - the Nazi term for races regarded as sub-human.

Anyone who decries the treatmet of prisones after serving in Ireland (feck Northern Ireland... I'ts one fecking country. Look at a map!) gets my attention.

The other day I wrote a column in support of Rush Limbaugh Circa '90. I've never felt more thouroughly rebuked by today's Rush.:

I can't find Rush's e-mail address so that I can't send my lamentation. If anybody can find a way to contact rush with a simple non-membership link I owe them a drink... containing alcohol. And a Dinner. Not containing alcohol.

Therefore I leave you with the ballad of the hypocrite:

Anti-Zionism aside, I looked for love on the Internet:

And found a billion matches. Probalby about half of those are women. There's hope out there.

Also comics.

Israel I beg you:

Fulfill the spirit of tolerance and love that is responsible for the re-creation of your state. Do not approve a constitution that begins the process of declaring a supreme people in your land. Ensure that people are given full rights to declare their vision for your land. Only then will your people be free.

Modernist vs. Post Modernist:

Just saw this blog entry while browsing crooks and liars.

Read below after you've watched the video.

Oh how Rush Limbaugh hath fallen. This was a fairly quiet and reasonable person on this show. He was being moderately venomous, as most good pundits are, in decrying a boycott of Idaho Potatoes linked to an Idaho abortion bill. I'm glad of course that the Idaho Gov. vetoed the bill. I'm glad that the audience cheered. I'm glad that the point was made that illegal abortion costs lives in terms of the mother's life and in terms of unwanted pregnancies being prone to higher rates of crime and lower life expectancy.

You know what I'm not pleased at. Rush couldn't get a sentence in. It wasn't a dialogue, it was a shouting match and Rush didn't play that game. He didn't call people murders, he certainly had 10 minutes to do so. He didn't tell anyone to shut up. He didn't have a group of people ejected. I disagree with most of what he said except for what would be the creed of the Modernist:

"I am not responsible for your behavior."

I wish that the Bushist right would understand that. I wish that they wouldn't compare dissent to comfort to the enemy. I wish that Rush '90 had the decency of Rush '06. I wish that post-modernists on the right and the left would realise that retricting the freedom of our enemies is, in effect, rendering freedom useless.

You won't have a discussion when you call your opponent a murdering pig. There is legitimacy in calling someone a hypocrite, but murderer? Pig? That's not discourse. That's not how to show support for the disenfranchise. That is naught but a strong arm tactic.

An analysis of Mysandry in the media, better than I could manage, by someone who was able to write one of the best comedies of the 20th century, despite the cliffhanger closer:

Michael Markowitz one of the writer's for Duckman.

Turning pop culture tools into methods of evaluating Canadian Politicians for at least a couple of weeks now:

http://slut-o-meter.com/index.php?name=pierre+trudeau

http://slut-o-meter.com/index.php?name=Maggie+Trudeau
That's more than:
http://slut-o-meter.com/index.php?name=Ron+Jeremy

http://slut-o-meter.com/index.php?name=Kim+Campbell

http://slut-o-meter.com/index.php?name=Don+Newman
(1.3% of you need serious help)

http://slut-o-meter.com/index.php?name=Peter+MacKay
(as do 22.89% of you)

http://slut-o-meter.com/index.php?name=Belinda+Stronach
(and only 4.15% of you)

And just because Steve's doing it:
http://slut-o-meter.com/index.php?name=Mackenzie+Bowell
Who is apparently sexier than Don Newman, despite the handicap of being dead for a century.

Things that lie in the dark recesses of the internet.

Were the wheels ever on?

So let me get this straight:

1. Emmerson re-elected. "Proud to be a Liberal"

2. Two weeks later Emerson joins Conservative cabinet, saying that he wanted to continue to serve as cabinet minister.

3. Conservatives, namely Peter MacKay, deflect by saying that this is diffferent than the Stronach defection. He's right Blindy had a pretext for why she fell out with her party. For Alan Park's take go here and watch "Emerson in the Dumps"

4. New Democrat from Burnaby-Sourgrapes or somewhere calls up the ethics commissioner, charging that cabinet positions are, in effect, bribes, and thus Harper, who was courting Emerson during the election was somehow bribing him.

5. Ethics comissioner decides that this case is unique ans based on complaint from lone New Democrat launches an investigation.

6. Ralph Goodale kicks back in an easy chair with a big scotch and soda.

7. PMO claims that Shapiro is a Liberal hack and tried to have him removed the moment he took power, making the ethics comissioner not so much responsible to parliament as to the PMO

8. Conservative sound-biters claim that then Mr. Harper will be able to deliver an ethics comissioner who is truly accountable.

So... If we take everyone at their words:

The Liberal Party wins one, they lose one, and they can balm their wounds with the fact that it makes Harper look like a hypocrite beccause he ruled out this sort of behavior.

The Conservative Party is making a mockery of logic and they are trying to exploit residual anger over the previous conduct of the Liberal party to give them the political capital to ride this out.

The NDP is continuing in their fine role of having every person who is clearly innocent investigated by making a complaint in the grave tone that only years of incestuous policy meetings and groupthink can breed.

And people wonder why I'm a PC.

Well, for my American readers:

Here's the big one. This might be the biggest Civil Rights reversal since Dred Scot or the biggest Civil rights victory since Brown vs. Board of Education. I certainly would like to think that the Governor's words about protecting society's most vulnerable are true, but I doubt it. Quoth Canadian Comedian Mike MacDonald:

"So why is it just Right to Life until you're born and then, 'here's a piece of cardboard, good luuuuuuck!'"

And that's the way the world was this March 7th, 2006.

Let she who is without pen:

Browing Yahoo today let me know that Margaret Atwood, bemused fan of David Orchard, hater of free trade, took a bit of a run at long distance autographing through her robotics company.

Intrigued, I popped by for a visit, and read briefly through Canadian Press' typically pedestrian and underly-ambitious prose.

But yeah, parodies of pompous former Harry Ainlay Presidents aside, Margaret Atwood has invented, with the help of a couple of engineers, a real-time long-distance autographing machine that lets author and fan communicate over long distances via web cam. This is a pretty cool invention with a lot of commercial possibilities, including 24 hour legal services, and the elimination of British author jet lag and the even greater fear of British Authors going abroad on a book tour: American Beer.