Barrel Strength

The arrest of Illinois Gov. Blagojevich (D) along with his chief of staff, and new developments in Rezko land deal have raised several questions about Obama himself.  Given the allegations, it is imperative that Obama make a sincere effort to clear his name, especially given the arduous task ahead.  The critical nature of world events ranging from terrorism and Iran to finance require no less.  This would also be a good time to head off potential problems in the future such as, does BHO have any outstanding debts to his cocaine dealer that would make him susceptible to blackmail?

To address all this and more, Obama’s first order of business should be an appointment of a Special Counsel to thoroughly and completely investigate any allegations that threaten to tar and blacken the Obama presidency. This president who has previously emulated JFK now must follow the words first uttered during his Inaugural Address: “…that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship…”  No matter the price of this investigation, it should be followed through to conclusion.  No matter what the burden or the length of the investigation, that hardship must be endured to avoid besmirchment of this Presidency.

By appointing a Special Counsel at the start of his Presidency, Obama will exemplify real change, instead of just words, as well a providing real hope for those looking for honest governance and transparency.  The President himself is responsibile for ensuring the success of the Presidency, rather than relying on TV pundits like Chris Matthews, who has vowed to make it his job.  Yes, this is all very serious.

A recent story links brain power to quality of sperm.

The story is reported in the Economist of December 4, 2008.

The interesting connection is the Geoffrey Miller, the co-author of the scientific article at the base of the story, and husband of the principal researcher, is author of the ground breaking book on sexual selection, The Mating Mind, with which all intelligent well-read people should be familiar.

The Economist story goes as follows:
_____________________________________________________

THERE are few better ways of upsetting a certain sort of politically correct person than to suggest that intelligence (or, rather, the variation in intelligence between individuals) is under genetic control. That, however, is one implication of a paper about to be published in Intelligence by Rosalind Arden of King’s College, London, and her colleagues. Another is that brainy people are intrinsically healthier than those less intellectually endowed. And the third, a consequence of the second, is that intelligence is sexy. The most surprising thing of all, though, is that these results have emerged from an unrelated study of the quality of men’s sperm.

Ms Arden is one of a group of researchers looking into the connections between intelligence, genetics and health. General intelligence (the extent to which specific, measurable aspects of intelligence, such as linguistic facility, mathematical aptitude and spatial awareness, are correlated in a given individual) is measured by psychologists using a value called Spearman’s g. Recently, it has been discovered that an individual’s g value is correlated with many aspects of his health, up to and including his lifespan. One possible explanation for this is that intelligent people make better choices about how to conduct their lives. They may, for example, be less likely to smoke, more likely to eat healthy foods or to exercise, and so on.

Alternatively (or in addition) it may be that intelligence is one manifestation of an underlying, genetically based healthiness. That is a view held by many evolutionary biologists, and was propounded in its modern form by Geoffrey Miller of the University of New Mexico, who is one of Ms Arden’s co-authors (and, as it happens, her husband). These biologists believe intelligence, as manifested in things like artistic and musical ability, is such a reliable indicator of underlying genetic fitness that it has been chosen by members of the opposite sex over the millennia. In the ensuing arms race to show off and get a mate it has been exaggerated in the way that a peacock’s tail is. This process of sexual selection, Dr Miller and his followers believe, is the reason people have become so brainy.

Hitting the g spot

Ms Arden sought to test this idea in a way that excluded intelligent choice and got directly at any correlations between intelligence and health that operate at the physiological level. She chose sperm quality because it is both easily measured and about as far from intelligent choice as it is possible to imagine—and because the relevant data had already been collected.

Her retrospective “volunteers” were former American soldiers enrolled in what was known as the Vietnam Experience Study. In 1985 almost 4,500 veterans of that war volunteered for extensive medical and mental examinations. Some of them gave semen samples that were analysed for sperm concentration (ie, number of sperm per cubic centimetre), sperm count (ie, total number of sperm in the ejaculate) and sperm motility.
Ms Arden found 425 cases where samples had been collected and analysed from unvasectomised men who had managed to avoid spilling their seed during the collection process and had answered all the necessary questions for her to test her hypothesis, namely that their g values would correlate with all three measures of their sperm quality.

They did. Moreover, neither age nor any obvious confounding variable that might have been a consequence of intelligent decisions about health (obesity, smoking, drinking and drug use) had any effect on the result. Brainy men, it seems, do have better sperm.

By implication, therefore, they have fitter bodies over all, at least in the Darwinian sense of fitness, namely the ability to survive, to attract mates and to produce offspring. That is an important finding. Hitherto, biologists have tended to disaggregate the idea of fitness into a series of adaptations that are more or less independent of each other. This work adds to the idea of a general fitness factor, f, that is similar in concept to g—and of which g is one manifestation. To him that hath, in other words, shall be given. Unfortunately for the politically correct, Dr Miller’s hypothesis looks stronger by the day.

Dear readers, Our friend the Dark Lord is too lazy to get a password for this site so I have to post some of his stuff here so that his readership expands beyond the exclusive confines of Berrelstrengthians. Encourage him to blog more!
_____________________________________________________________
Ms O’Grady’s article (Monday’s Wall Street Journal)-Canada’s Conservatives
Overreach– shows what a difference two days can make in politics. Now it
looks like the Liberals and the NDP overreached!

The Liberals and the NDP formed the coalition with a view to defeating the
Conservative government and slipping into power without an election. This
Liberal/NDP/Bloc Quebecois troika absolutely depended on that assumption.
It should be noted that the Bloc Quebecois has no legitimacy in nine of the
ten Provinces of Canada; it does not seek votes outside the Province of
Quebec; and its primary objective is to break up the Federation. Should
this coalition come to power, the party seeking to break up the Federation
would have veto power all the Federal Government’s decisions. With that in
mind, it is clear why the attempt to unseat the Conservative government
created such a furious outcry.

Further, the claimed pretext for forming the coalition, namely the
Conservatives’ plan to cease the subsidizing of political parties with
taxpayers’ money, is, according to the latest poll, supported by fully 61%
of the electorate. Yet another poll reveals that more that two thirds of
the electorate (68% nationally and higher in some of the nine
English-speaking Provinces) want a new election should the government fall.

After years of posing as the main federalist party in Canada, and especially
in Quebec, these shabby dealings may well have done lasting harm to the
Liberal Party. With the polls showing what the voters think of this deal,
it’s no wonder the troika wanted to avoid an election: they would be
hammered at the polls, and Mr. Harper may well turn out to be the unintended
victor in this conspiracy.

Regards,

The Dark Lord

Liberals may feel they finally have someone to save the furniture but the polls show it looks more like they’ve anointed the new head of the underwater salvage team:

A new poll suggests that a proposed Liberal-NDP coalition under Michael Ignatieff’s leadership isn’t much more palatable than an alliance under Stephane Dion.

The Canadian Press-Harris-Decima survey found that only 32 per cent of respondents favoured a coalition led by Dion, with 59 per cent opposed.

Asked if they would support a coalition led by Ignatieff, 38 per cent were supportive, with 50 per cent still opposed.

Last week legal expert Ed Ratushny commented on Newman’s “Politics” that the coalition plotters telegraphed their intentions far too soon and thus never factored in Harper’s ability to fight on. One would have expected a Harvard academic to have drawn some insights from history: even current pop culture flagged this one for him.

In this past week an email exchange among Barrelstrengthians became heated. Our occasional contributor Oban took the view that the Governor General should refuse to allow the Prime Minister to prorogue (suspend) Parliament until the New Year, which would give the Conservatives enough time to draft a budget.

Oban felt that the government should fall and be replaced by the Liberal- socialist-separatist coalition immediately after Monday, December 8th, without an election.

The Dark Lord responded. This posting records their exchange. In the meantime, Oban has been encouraged to repent and turn to Jesus, or spend his holidays reading Edmund Burke.
_____________________________________________________

The Dark Lord writes:

Oban has raised some interesting points, and given us his lawyer’s interpretation. Here is his full text:

“I fail to understand the position taken by the GG. I am surprised she didn’t confer with the opposition parties before granting the prorogation.

“I find it constitutionally suspect to grant prorogation when the Government faces a confidence vote in the House. A more soundly grounded GG might have been very reluctant to grant prorogation under such circumstances, and a poor constitutional precedent has been set respecting the requirement that the Government have the confidence of the House.
“Under what constitutional theory is Harper operating? I have yet to see an articulation that is consistent with the requirement that the Government be formed from those who enjoy the confidence of the House.
He might be able to save the Government if he resigns, but I doubt he will. This likely means either coalition rule or an election.
I think in constitutional terms, the coalition must be given the opportunity to form a Government and face the House.

The underlying constitutional fact is that the people elect a Parliament, not a Government. The GG asks the party with the largest number of seats to form a Government. The Conservatives were given that opportunity. That Government has lost the confidence of Parliament. As there seems to be a workable majority that will support an alternate Government, the GG is constitutionally bound to call on Mr. Dion to attempt to form a Government.”

It seems to me that the important points raised by Oban are basically as follows:
1. I fail to understand the position taken by the GG.
2. I find it constitutionally suspect to grant prorogation when the Government faces a confidence vote in the House.
3. I think in constitutional terms, the coalition must be given the opportunity to form a Government and face the House.
4. The underlying constitutional fact is that the people elect a Parliament, not a Government. The GG asks the party with the largest number of seats to form a Government.
Let’s consider these points, in reverse order. Firstly, it is true that in a constitutional monarchy the people elect a Parliament, not a Government. But this is the legalistic bare bones of the structure, not even a complete skeleton—it does not tell us of the nature of the political reality in its fullness. People may elect members of Parliament, but they vote for parties, policies, personalities and other things. The Parliament is not just the mechanistic sum of the votes when it comes to the Governor General making a decision. If it were, there would be no need for the Governor General to make a decision, indeed no need for a Governor General.
As Ted McWhinney said on TV, the Governor General must consult constitutional law, but must also (50%, I think he said) consult common sense and the general political atmosphere of the nation at the time.
Just yesterday, two very interesting poll results were announced. One showed that 61% of the electorate opposes taxpayers’ money going to subsidize political parties. Chalk up one for the Tories. This is one of the issues that so incensed the Liberals and Bloc in particular. The Opposition claim that this is an “assault on democracy” is pure humbug. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The other poll showed fully two-thirds (68% nationally and even higher in the nine English-speaking Provinces) want a new election rather than the appointment the coalition should the Government be defeated in a confidence vote in the House. Again, this bodes surprisingly well for the Tories.
Secondly, “the coalition must be given the opportunity to form a Government and face the House.” Must it? If, after the return of Parliament at the end of January, the Government is defeated in a confidence vote, and the Prime Minister advises a new general election, and if these numbers remain the same, I think the Governor General would be strongly advised to accede to the Prime Minister’s advice and call an election. After all, if it is abundantly clear that electorate will not stand for the appointment of this cabal, let the voters speak.Thirdly, why is it “constitutionally suspect” to grant prorogation? Since prorogation is a royal prerogative (these days the advice of the Prime Minister) it needs no other justification-–that’s what prerogative is.

Given that a week in politics is a long time, six weeks can be an eternity. While the number of seats and parties in the House will be exactly the same at the end of January, the political atmosphere may be wholly different, especially if the Tories incorporate some opposition planks in the Budget, no matter how absurd they may be. At least then the Opposition will have to accept some responsibility for the Budget.

Even then, if they bring down the Government, the Tories have their campaign ready made for them—simply the photo that appeared on the front page of National Post showing Layton and Duceppe shaking hands and smiling, with a befuddled Dion grinning supinely behind them. It hardly needs the caption—Vote Conservative!
But the Coalition would in that event evaporate like the dew on a summer’s morning. Can you imagine them campaigning together? Step aside Spitting Image!

They depend entirely on avoiding an election. The raison d’être of this so-called coalition is to achieve power without facing the voters. It has no basis otherwise; indeed, it is the only way such a conspiracy could flourish. It is a sleight of hand trick to let Liberals and socialists slither into power. And the fact that they have to depend on those who would tear up the Federation shows how bankrupt they are. The NDP should change its name to the New Anti-Democratic Party, and the Liberals—well, they crave power more than a junkie craves heroin.

This is nothing like a regular party coalition such as the Liberal/Country party coalition that existed in Australia for a long while, or the Christian Democrats and Free Democrats in Germany. It is an agreement between the Liberals and the NDP with 114 seats, considerably less than the Tories’ 143, and an underhand “agreement” with the Bloc, a party that is committed to breaking up the Federation at the first opportunity. Clearly, this troika does not have as its foremost objective the benefit of Canada—the Bloc has openly stated that their prime concern is to ensure only the passage of that legislation that serves Quebec’s interests.

There’s nothing wrong in that in itself, but there is everything wrong when such a party is given veto power over the Federal Government when it has never presented candidates or sought votes in all Provinces, has never given a thought for furthering the interests of this nation as a whole, and has no legitimacy in nine of the ten Provinces of Canada.

During the next few weeks, many questions must be asked of the coalition: what agreements were reached with the Bloc; what quid pro quo was given, etc? Will the Bloc have Cabinet ministers? If not, then why is a group of 114 MPs given power solely on the basis that the Bloc will…what exactly?
It seems that the electorate will simply not stand for a cabal of socialists and separatists taking over without a vote. So let them bring down the Government: I think they have vastly underestimated the distaste the voters have for inviting the Bloc to have a veto over the Federal Government of whatever stripe. This will not be lost on the Governor General.

So fourthly, well, is it more clear now why the Governor General took the decision she did?
The Dark Lord

Those who have seen the recent polls favouring the Conservatives and who are surprised should read this. Those who are not surprised will find confirmation of their beliefs here.

I am going to take the risk of saying something I believe to be true.

There is a dangerous streak of anger in English Canada, as well as a beleaguered patriotism, that can be mobilized in an instant against the separatists, which normally is kept locked in a freezer deep in the basement. It is really dangerous to bring it out, and events, not Harper, brought it out this time. It will be put back in the freezer until events summon it forth again.

The tensions of sustaining civil relations to a party that just wants to take and not give is slightly comparable to the tensions in the US before the Civil War, though far less likely to explode in this country, because the underlying sentiments of separatists and English Canadians have been adjusted to each other more successfully (so far) through federalism, and English Canada recognizes that if Quebec wants to go, nothing will stop it and no one needs to stop it. Quebec’s formal separation will be the moment when its political class, as well as its people, will have to start to pay the freight for Quebec’s economic and social policies. A sudden onrush of realism will overtake the province’s politics when that happens.

There is no cause worth dying for to keep French Canada attached if they really want to leave. But don’t leave with the family property, most Canadians would add. Also I would say that over the course of my lifetime, the proportion of English Canadians who believe we are only different from the States because of Quebec is diminishing, and that the bonds of affection between French and English Canada, real though they are, are diminishing over time as we have less to do with one another.

In essence I am saying that two forces converged in the opposition to the Liberal-NDP parliamentary coup, one an opposition to the parliamentary tactics to take over government without an election, and the other a rage against the Bloc and all its stands for.

I make no estimate of their relative importance, except to say that they are both at play in the current situation.

This, for what it is worth, is my analysis. It suggests that Prime Minister Harper has tapped into the monster in the basement, and notwithstanding the tremors of the commentariat, and the real risks of national fragmentation, he will ride this to majority government.

In granting Mr. Harper’s request to prorogue Parliament, Madame Jean has correctly interpreted her role, and taken the most appropriate action.

For those of you who missed it – Ted McWhinney, a Constitutional expert and former Liberal MP, appeared yesterday on CTV’s Mike Duffy Live with some cogent and helpful comments on the situation. McWhinney, who has advised a number of governments on constitutional impasses of this kind, said that as far as the GG’s options/responsibilities in this kind of situation, “There’s virtually no writing of any value – based on empirical studies from here or abroad. Constitutional law is 50 per cent rules, and 50 per cent high politics and a successful G.G. knows how to maintain that balance. Reading public opinion is crucial.”

He said the GG should make her decision in light of what provides the most political stability and that she is obliged in the first instance to take advice from her first minister, Harper – a view echoed by other constitutional experts I have seen interviewed this week, who all opined that it would be very peculiar for her to refuse to grant his request for prorogation, as long as he specified when a new session of Parliament would be opened and the timeframe was reasonable (BTW, in all of the hullabaloo, no one seems to have noticed that the House was scheduled to recess Dec 12 to Jan 26, so one week has been lost).

McWhinney also said it would be completely inappropriate for her to meet with anyone else other than the Leader of the Opposition (i.e. not with Layton), and any meeting with Dion could only be after meeting with the PM in order to explain her decision in person, if she wished to do so – she is under no obligation. He was adament that any kind of communication – much less ‘negotiations’ – with the opposition parties prior to giving a decision on Harper’s request for prorogation would be wholly incorrect.

McWhinney also said there “is a heavy burden” on the opposition to prove that they can form a stable coalition government. He said it’s important for the opposition to put an agreement down on paper, like they have already done, but said the agreement needs to be signed by the Bloc Quebecois in addition to the Liberals and NDP, otherwise there is no real guarantee of stability as the coalition is claiming. He called the current agreement “unsatisfactory,” on that account and on the fact that Dion would only be PM for four months before stepping down in favour of an unknown person at this point, so again indicating a lack of stable leadership for the country. Based on all this, he thought it highly unlikely that the GG would seriously entertain asking the coaltion to form a government at this stage.

McWhinney also made reference to a comparable situation in Australia in 1975, which had a sad outcome for then GG Bob Kerr when he decided to overreach his mandate. Kerr thought it advisable to play politics by going behind the back of Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam and asking the opposition to form a government because the budget had been stalled in the Senate by opposition hacks for six weeks and the government would at some point be unable to pay its bills (the story is more complicated but that is the essence).

The news that Kerr had dismissed Whitlam immediately triggered protest demonstrations acoss Australia, and for the rest of his term as GG, Kerr was rarely able to appear in public without encountering angry demonstrations against him. Even worse, Labor party MPs and Senators refused to accept his legitimacy as GG, as did Labor parliamentarians in the states and territories, shunning all official functions where he was in attendance. He apparently took to the bottle, resigned early from the office of GG and lived abroad for the 14 yrs prior to his death to escape the vilification that both he and (sadly) his wife faced at home. McWhinney said that when he met Kerr living in Europe he was “a broken man”. It is a sad, salutory lesson of what can happen when an essentially honorary appointee oversteps his/her functions and presumes on the limited powers granted to the office.

Now that the uncertainty has diminished, things seem clearer.  One hopes that Harper will use the time to plot an effective strategy.  The next focal point will be the budget, which the Liberal-NDP-Bloc will have to vote against to overthrow the Conservatives.  If the opposition does not follow through by voting against the budget, without knowing its contents no less, then they will have blinked again and will never be taken seriously again.  Not that Dion is currently taken seriously.

The presented budget is likely to be all things to all people.  A high-spending, something-for-everyone , election-winning budget.  Voting against it will be (hopefully) electoral suicide.  Not voting against it will be political suicide.

Occasionally I find the views of my friend the Dark Lord to be worthy of a post in the august company of the whiskey swilling ranks of the BarrelStrengthians.
____________________________________________________
Folks:

I return from the country to find my e-mail box surprisingly bereft of
comments.

About what? The assault on the due process in political life.

What is happening here?

A cabal of shysters, socialists and separatists have figured that they can
achieve power by virtue of a quirk of constitutional antiquities.

Point 1:

As far as I know the Liberals and the NDP do not have the seats in the House
to outvote the Conservatives. Therefore, any prospective coalition must
depend on support from the Bloc Quebecois. As such, any coalition must
depend on the Bloc as a decision-making segment of the Federal Government.

For a Federal Government to invite the support of any party that has, as its
objective, the break up of Canada, into the decision-making process, is
nothing short of sedition.

The Bloc enjoys the support of Quebec voters, but represents no-one in the
nine other provinces of Canada. It does not present candidates or gain any
votes in nine out of ten provinces in Canada. Any federal coalition
inviting their support is inviting the destruction of Canada. Do we need
any other indication that the opposition is motivated by any other
consideration than that of immediate power, perhaps granted by a quirk of
political fate?

Thus, any coalition will be beholden to the votes of a party that has as its
avowed objective to break up the federation. This is sedition.

Point 2:

None of the opposition parties would have had the guts to do this if they
thought that they had to face the voters. They are banking on escaping an
election. They are depending on not facing election. They fear it. They
are intent on avoiding it.

Point 3:

The Governor General can avoid any problems by calling an election.

Point 4:

The Opposition found that they were no longer going to get free handouts
from the taxpayer. Their lifelines were being threatened because they
cannot get sufficient support from free citizens who would voluntarily
contribute to their respective political parties. In order to protect their
avenue of lucre, they sought to defeat the government. Protection of that
flow of taxpayers’ money was all that was required for the opposition get
visceral. However, their concern for maintaining their free money from the
taxpayers was far outweighed by their opposition to a new election. Oh, it
would cost money!

No amount of money is too great to ensure that the views of the elecotrate
are properly reflected in their government. No price is too high to pay.
Millions of lives have been given by Canadians to protect freedom and
liberty, here, and in many other countries. To claim that their concerns
about not receiving free money for their political parties are legitmate,
and to claim that an election, where the voters actually have a choice, is
not required, is to show their complete contempt for democracy.

Point 5:

As far as I know, Duceppe has not actually signed any deal in writing.
There is thus no deal, no coalition.

Point 6:

I urge all of you, regardless of your political predilictions, to pay
attention to the fact that usurping power in a democracy requires, in
matters of decency and honour, to seek a mandate. Any Canadian government
that invites the support of those who would break up the country, is
seditious. Should such a regime come to power, it would be a bastard
regime, illegitimate, void of all moral worth, and, if it should come to
power, must be defeated at the first opportunity.

Point 7:

I have just heard the Prime Minister’s speech–I felt it right, but lacking.
However, when I heard the appalling drivel from Dion, Harper’s speech
seemed stronger. My better half said that Harper’s holding his cards to his
chest. Maybe, she’s right. I hope so.

Point 8:

It’s time to stand up and be counted. This is a coup of the embedded Liberal
establishment to grasp power at any opportunity. Let’s remember, if they
want to bring in a new government, let them face the voters. Anything less,
is a descent to a banana republic.

The Dark Lord

Harper House of Commons December 2, 2008

I have been reading Prescott’s magnificent “The Conquest of Mexico”, the story of how Hernan Cortes and 1000 men, of whom about 15 were cavalry, conquered the Aztec Empire in 1519.  First he burned the boats that would allow them to return to Cuba. Then he led his band up the cold high passes by smoking volcanoes into the central valley of Mexico. Seeking the alliance of the Tlascalans, the hereditary enemies of the Aztecs, he sought permission to pass through their territory. They refused, and fought him on open plains with an army of 30,000 men. As Prescott relates, it was Greeks versus Persians all over again. The military science of the Europeans, not merely the military technologies, prevailed. The Tlascalans nearly overwhelmed the Spaniards in furious onslaught, repelled only by the most desperate defence. The Tlascalans tried several times to eliminate the Spaniards, failing each time. They then made peace with the Spaniards, who made them vassals of the Spanish Crown. The Spanish then marched on  to Mexico, the capital of the Aztec Empire, a city set in a lake and separated from  the land by mile-long causeways. Aided greatly by the Tlascalans, Cortes and his band of Catholic pirates eventually overwhelmed the Aztecs in furious house to house fighting, as smallpox devastated the Aztecs. This is a story so astonishing it could not be believed except that it actually happened.

At a several points in this amazing foray, members of Cortes band grew disheartened with the odds, fully cognizant that the would have their hearts torn out if they were captured, as some were. 

When some of his troops grew dismayed after the first battle with the Tlascalans, seeing an eternity of struggle ahead of them, they confronted their elected general. He responded as follows. There comes a point in a great venture, Cortes pointed out, that you cannot retreat. You must do or die. In their case, die in a terrifying, humiliating and painful ceremony for the entertainment of blood-drenched savages. When the Spanish had fought their first battle with the brave Tlascalans, and knew that they would have to defeat them and still march onward to the major enemy, the Aztecs, and saw no end to the slaughter ahead of them, Cortes reminded his troops that the die was cast, that they could not retreat, that they could not get back to the coast alive, and that every vassal or ally they had made thusfar would turn on them and destroy them before the Aztecs could punish  them for failing to do so. Do or die, everlasting ignominy or deathless fame.

Harper and the Conservatives have reached that point. Thus I was happy to hear that, at the Conservative Christmas party last Monday night (December 1st), he gave what was described as “a Henry the Fifth speech” before the Battle of Agincourt. If my friend had been more acquainted with Prescott, he might have said Harper’s speech was like Cortes’ after the first battle with the Tlascalans. In any case, the thought that the Prime Minister said he would use “all legal means” to fight off the Liberal-socialist-separatist coalition gladdened me, and gave heart to all of us who think the Liberal party must be decisively defeated, again,  before it can be reformed.

Look at his eyes in the picture above.

My friend Arran Gold is correct in his criticism that Harper ought not to have gone for the throats of the Opposition without a majority. Having done so, however, and roused them from their stupor, Harper finds himself and his party on the cusp of something huge. It is time for a big shakedown in Canadian politics, one which, willy nilly, we shall have.

Canada’s chess-playing prime minister, Stephen Harper, appears to be a patzer given his recent play.  His strategy is akin to bringing out the queen early in play and checking the opposing king.  Although Harper’s plan to remove public financing of political parties is a good idea, it is one that he should have delayed till he had a better position, i.e. a majority in parliament.

Harper also seems to have forgotten a key concept that self-preservation is the primary goal of any entity.  How exactly did he expect Bloc to react when their only source for campaign funds was about to be cut off?  Did he really expect that the Liberal party, which is on the ropes financially, would quietly fade away?  What did he expect NDP to do, given their fondness for handouts with no strings attached?

He seems to be compounding the problem with an attempt to prorogue the parliament.  The strategy in this case appears to be to go on a public relations offensive and highlight the inclusion of separatist Bloc in the coalition, as well as the “unfairness” given the election results.  This strategy is profoundly wrong, because it is an attempt to shame and embarrass the coalition partners.  Harper seems to be forgetting that politicians, especially those belonging to the Liberal party, are beyond all this and cannot be shamed or embarrassed.

Jim Bianco of Bianco Research crunched the inflation adjusted numbers. The bailout has cost more than all of these big budget government expenditures – combined:

• Marshall Plan: Cost: $12.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $115.3 billion
• Louisiana Purchase: Cost: $15 million, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $217 billion
• Race to the Moon: Cost: $36.4 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $237 billion
• S&L Crisis: Cost: $153 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $256 billion
• Korean War: Cost: $54 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $454 billion
• The New Deal: Cost: $32 billion (Est), Inflation Adjusted Cost: $500 billion (Est)
• Invasion of Iraq: Cost: $551b, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $597 billion
• Vietnam War: Cost: $111 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $698 billion
• NASA: Cost: $416.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $851.2 billion
• World War II: Cost: $288 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $3.6 trillion

Total cost: $7.53 trillion

Bloomberg places the total cost for the bailout so far at $7.7 trillion.  All this before the bailout for the Big Three automakers and before Obama-Pelosi-Ried team has started playing.

h/t The Big Picture

Dec 4, 2008

Update: A reader forwarded the following note regarding the above.

Another way to examine the expenditure is as a percentage of GDP.  One of the difficulties with this option is that some of the expenditure were over several years.  In those cases, the chronological midpoint is chosen.  The key point to note is that expenditures related to the Credit Crisis are just getting started.

Louisiana Purchase: Cost: $15 million, 3.13% of GDP in 1803
The New Deal: Cost: $32 billion (Est), 43.66% of GDP in 1935
World War II: Cost: $288 billion, 177.89% of GDP in 1942
Marshall Plan: Cost: $12.7 billion, 4.75% of GDP in 1949
Korean War: Cost: $54 billion, 15.07% of GDP in 1952
Race to the Moon: Cost: $36.4 billion, 4.62% of GDP in 1966
Vietnam War: Cost: $111 billion, 11.27% of GDP in 1969
S&L Crisis: Cost: $153 billion, 3.00% of GDP in 1988
Invasion of Iraq: Cost: $551 billion, 4.44% of GDP in 2005

Credit Crisis: $7.8 trillion, 54.55% of GDP in 2008

CNN asks why Jews were attacked in Mumbai by Muslim terrorist.

And we still – but we still do not know a motive.  You know, you look at the Jewish center. Why did they hit the Jewish center? You know, and you look at the other places, you know, big icons where there are going to be a lot of people.  And that’s what terrorists do. They hit places that they consider soft targets where they can have the most bang for the buck, if you will, and where there are a lot of people – hotels, train stations, those kind of things.

MSNBC asks why the election of Obama didn’t bring terrorism to a halt.

ALEX WITT: You know, John, and it’s interesting because there are many who had such an optimstic and hopeful opinion of things, and you certainly can’t expect things to change [snaps fingers] on a dime overnight, but there are many who suggested that with the outgoing Bush administration and the incoming Obama administration there would be something of a lull in terrorism attacks. There had been such a global outpouring of affection, respect, hope, with the new administration coming in, that precisely these kinds of attacks, it was thought — at least hoped — would be dampered down. But in this case it looks like Barack Obama is getting a preview of things to come.

Such are the eternal mysteries that confound the MSM in this day and age.  Of course this might explain the latter.

Jury justice is rapidly delivered to the sole surviving terrorist in Mumbai, India.

[youtube boDL-hQfKKM]

The puppet masters of the coalition are revealed:

CTV’s Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife reported earlier Monday that a high-profile, four-person economic panel would guide a Liberal-NDP coalition government on finance matters.

The group would comprise Frank McKenna, Paul Martin, John Manley and Roy Romanow.

“This is a way to assure Canadians the economy would be managed properly,” Fife told CTV Newsnet.

The panel of “wise men” would help the new government navigate the current global economic turbulence, he said.

The list includes three Liberals and one New Democrat, though none currently hold elected office.

Well, Bob, one guy’s “wise men” is most other people’s “junta”.

At least he’s already in the proper mindset if he contemplates a career move to Al-Jazeera.