How Manley can test Canadian Toryism

My latest from the Guelph Mercury. Also available at National Newswatch and Bourque.
_______________

_______________

As Her Majesty’s new Canadian ministry settle into their various and several appointments over the course of the next weeks, their honourable counterparts – the Liberal shadow cabinet – will no doubt do the same.

While the Conservative party get on with governing, however, the Liberals have already delved into that most exciting and expensive of political events: the leadership race.

As this is my first column since the federal election, a word on Monsieur Dion is appropriate. The outgoing Liberal leader is a distinguished parliamentarian and he is a patriot. History will be far kinder to him than either the Conservative party or his own party have been.

However. What’s done is done, and now the natural governing party – a title straining under the weight of misfortune, perhaps – is focused on finding a new front man. And there are any number of serious contenders.

The speculation so far as been focused on Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff. There are some interesting dynamics at play in this regard: Rae and Ignatieff are friends from way back, and both are transplants into the Liberal Party of Canada, though in different ways: one migrated to the Liberals and one migrated (back) to Canada.

Both bring assets and liabilities to the table. Rae’s got that whole Ontario thing to wear around his neck, though he’s been a strong performer in parliament and perhaps an even stronger critic of the government on foreign affairs.

Ignatieff’s also performed admirably in the House, while also serving as deputy Liberal leader. This may have enabled him to pull together a critical mass of caucus and institutional support over the last year or so.

But the figure that really interests me is John Manley.

Canadians will recall Manley’s service in the latest instalment of Liberal ascendancy as both finance minister and foreign minister. You don’t get more high profile than that. He was also deputy prime minister – a post invented by Mr. Trudeau and which Mr. Harper has mercifully euthanised – and was given special anti-terror responsibilities in the wake of 9/11.

More recently, he chaired the bi-partisan panel on Canada’s policy toward Afghanistan which bore his name.

In fact, Mr. Manley is exactly the type of fellow the Globe and Mail called for as the next Liberal leader, even before Mr. Dion’s political corpse had cooled: a blue liberal.

He’s considered a blue Liberal by virtue of his pro-business economic instincts, his pro-US foreign policy positions and his favourable disposition toward continental integration. All of these things distinguish him from the average contemporary Liberal to varying degrees.

The thing is, taking the long view, John Manley isn’t the exception to Canadian Liberalism; he’s the rule. Only since Trudeau has the Liberal party’s liberalism shifted from right to left, both in rhetoric and substance. It’s this relatively new left-liberalism that has enabled the Liberal party to appear collectivist, even though its core belief in individual liberty remains unchanged.

What makes Mr. Manley such an interesting possibility for Liberal leader is that he would challenge the ideological postures of both governing parties.

To the Liberal party, Manley represents the values that defined Canadian Liberalism until only very recently: free markets, republicanism, continentalism and pragmatism. Will these values prevail against the left-liberalism so popular with that party’s base of support?

To the Conservative party, the challenge is even more pronounced. Having Manley at the helm of the Liberal party would force Canadian conservatism to choose between its tory and neo-conservative elements, the latter of which embraces similar ideals to those espoused by Manley’s type of liberalism.

Faced with a pro-free market, hawkish and continentalist Liberal leader, would the new Reform-influenced Conservative party have found an ideological partner, ending any real philosophical dissension between liberalism and conservatism in Canada? Or will Canada’s older tory tradition – which affirms our country’s constitutional heritage and sovereign independence from the United States – enjoy a renaissance, because a nationalist toryism would be the obvious alternative to Manley-style liberalism?

Put another way: does toryism yet live?

To find out, poke it with a stick – like only John Manley can.
_______________
Note: the above (original draft) bears extremely minor stylistic differences from the published version.
_______________
UPDATE: Manley won’t run.

Building the Strategy

_______________

The Plan
The Tories have put together a nifty six-point plan to guide the country through economic turmoil.

This is basically just a promise to not be wildly negligent. In fact, it’s reasonably similar in spirit to the agenda Liberal leader Stephane Dion announced mid-campaign.

In reality, methinks the most important element of the package is having an economic policy wonk at the helm of the government during difficult times. That, if the recent light-on-promises, heavy-on-record campaign is any indication, is the real plan.
_______________

A Deficit Budget?
The Conservative government have refused to categorically rule out the possibility of running a deficit for fiscal 08-09.

There are some interesting points to ponder, here.

First, running the odd deficit, so long as it serves to preserve and enhance the long-term strength and competitiveness of the Canadian economy, is not the end of the world.

The real risk lies the politics of the thing. The Tories have consistently pledged to avoid deficit spending. This sword takes on a double edge given the fact that the Liberal brand still competes well when it comes to which party voters think is better suited to manage the economy. The Liberals have built up a budget-hawk type of reputation ever since eliminating the deficit (on the backs of the provinces).

For the Tories to serve up a deficit budget would further reinforce the Grits’ fiscal credentials, thereby taking a major step back in terms of convincing Canadians that the Conservative Party are ready to govern the country steadily, responsible and indefinitely.
_______________

Strategy
The Tory government should consult with the Liberal Party, at a time and within the parameters of the former’s choosing, to discuss viable options for working together on the economy. A broad consensus on economic management – which is not out of the realm, given the general economic orientation of both parties and the political considerations of both parties – could go a long way to ensure the survival of the 40th parliament for at least the next 18 months or two years.

The real question, perhaps, is whether the Conservative government will ram a series of confidence motions down the Opposition’s throat – a la erstwhile LPC Communications chief Scott Reid’s prediction – in an attempt to hobble its political posture whilst the Liberals endure an expensive and temporarily debilitating leadership contest.

The long-term relative strength of the Conservative Party will be determined in large measure by how the government manages and maximises the vulnerabilities of the Loyal Opposition. The stakes are awfully high and the nature of the challenge is extremely interesting: it’s a minority government, Canadians are electioned-out, deficit spending is not out of the question and the Conservative brand is newly ascendant whilst the Liberal brand is severely battered.
_______________

Hang in there, Canucks. Gonna be interesting.

On Canada’s Election

_______________

The ballots are counted, the results are in, and Canada has made a choice. Another Tory minority government.

This is indeed a strengthened mandate for the Conservative Government, led by Mr. Stephen Harper. I share the Prime Minister’s view that a second consecutive minority win – this time with a stronger plurality of seats in the House – does indeed add heft to the Conservatives’ claim to have a strong national mandate. This is especially so in light of the Tories’ broad support across the country, from Prince Edward Island to Quebec, from Ontario to the prairies, Alberta and British Columbia.
_______________

The Vision Thing
George H. W. Bush was once lampooned for carelessly referring to a governing philosophy or comprehensive plan as “the vision thing”. A clear reference to the idea that governments ought to “muddle through” with measurable, achievable and seemingly positive reforms and programmes as dictated by necessity or common sense, “the vision thing” comment made it clear to Americans that the elder Bush wasn’t about grand national agendas. He just wanted to keep things moving in the right direction. Proceed with caution.

Bush 41’s lack of interest in over-arching ideological agendas seems to pretty accurately reflect the recent Conservative election campaign. What, exactly, did the Conservatives run on? What’s the agenda? And therefore, what’s the mandate?

There was a hodgepodge of good stuff, to be sure. Helpful tax relief to first-time home buyers, tax credits for parents who enrol their children in arts-related programmes, a pledge to extend significant parental benefits to female, self-employed small business owners, etc. These and a number of other policies shed important light on the real not-so-hidden Conservative agenda: replace the Liberal Party as the natural governing party of Canada.

Thankfully, there were also a number of items designed to assist the less fortunate and persons with disabilities, as well as stable and predictable, if still light, investments in defence and arctic sovereignty. That’s just to say that although the Conservative agenda (from here on into the foreseeable future, as far as I can tell) is designed to appeal to the small town/suburban middle class, there are still important elements that can be explained more accurately as extensions of conservative ideology, and not only political expediency.

But in the end, is it a strength or weakness of the Conservative Party that they’ve won government on such a middle-of-the-road agenda? No sweeping plan like in 2006 – just a bunch of small and achievable good stuff.

For the most part, the current economic climate played into the Conservatives’ ideal campaign narrative: leadership and economic management. And the Tories’ reluctance to put forward anything more than a narrow arrangement of modest tax cuts also enabled a very negative campaign, which focused on individual leaders more than the appeal of the different parties’ ideas and visions for Canada.
_______________

Monsieur Dion
There can be no doubt that Liberal leader Stephan Dion got the worst of it. It’s perfectly reasonable to draw contrasts that show the differences between different leaders’ ideas and visions and record. And it’s perfectly reasonable to any party to go after any other party’s performance in government. But I did, I admit, regret seeing Mr. Dion portrayed as being “not worth the risk”.

I agree with the Conservative Party that the Green Shift is not be worth the risk at this juncture. If nothing else, it just smells funny to get into a major fiscal overhaul during the middle of a global financial crisis – an overhaul that would hit the profits of a key Canadian industry at a time when Canadians’ savings are tanking.

But from my own, personal perspective, Mr. Dion was in fact worth a bit more graciousness and magnanimity. As a Minister of the Crown – from Quebec, no less – he staunchly defended our country against those who want to tear it apart. He was an effective Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs by all accounts, and he’s maintained a high level of personal integrity both in government and in opposition. He’s a perfectly decent fellow and, it goes without saying, a patriot.
_______________

The Future for the Liberals
There’s already buzz that former premier of New Brunswick, Frank McKenna, will seek the leadership of the Liberal Party should Stephane Dion step down. Which means, obviously, that euphonious rhythm emanating from the Red Machine is that of knives sharpening.

First of all, should Mr. Dion retire, he can do so in dignity and with a clear conscience. He failed to win election and showed, I believe, poor political instincts from time to time. But taking the broad view, he’s rendered distinguished service to this dominion, and that’s what he ought to be remembered for – by all sides.

The main problem the Liberals face is their continuing inability to focus on rebuilding and renewing their party. The fact that the Tories won another minority means that the Liberals have to focus both on being an active and engaged and legislatively creative Official Opposition and on rebuilding the party. Not to mention, the party is in rough financial shape. Especially compared to the governing party.

A Tory majority, which I think many Liberals were hankering for privately, would have given the Liberals two and a half years to unwind and get their things in order, and a year and a half to start taking it to the government. No such luck.
_____________

The Future for the Conservatives

The Tories are well positioned for the same reason the Liberals are poorly positioned – the Grits can’t focus (almost) exclusively on rebuilding for a few years, and the Conservatives are comparably well heeled. But there’s a minor sub-narrative developing: can Mr. Harper, under any circumstances, deliver a majority? If he is able to do this, shouldn’t it have happened this last election?

To me, this is a moot point for a few reasons.

First, it is most certainly not clear at this point that there are any prospects out there with Harper’s strategic instincts and abilities. Even if there were, Harper has done nothing to demonstrate he deserves to be replaced. To all those out there who think Harper’s leadership limits the appeal of the Conservative Party: your views will perhaps fall on more fertile ground after Harper, say, stops winning elections.

Second, the Tories have a government to administer. It is in the national interest and the Conservative Party’s interest that the Tory government continue to provide measurable and progressive results for Canadians. This should be the focus.

Stephen Harper has united the right, won government, and thrown the Grits into a protracted tail-spin. This is already plenty of material for the memoirs, but I suspect he’s got a few more chapters to write. I suspect these chapters will tell the story of how the Conservative Party achieved at least parity with the Liberals in national support on a stable and long-term basis, and how the Tory government steered the ship of state slowly, but consistently, toward lower taxes, stronger national institutions, a modest surge in patriotism and stronger national unity.
_______________
UPDATE: Scott Pruysers on the Dion Issue.

UPDATE 2: Jeffrey Simpson on the same.

Good Grief

Here’s a video (h/t J.S.) of Mr. Dion doing an interview with CTV:

_______________

First of all, Dion should have known to pivot to either the hypothetical that he’s been prime minister for two years, or to the hypothetical that he’s appointed prime minister in the near future. The interviewer would have gladly allowed that.

But let’s take a moment here for a little civility, shall we? The interviewer could easily have clarified the issue for his guest, and, though Monsieur Dion didn’t handle the exchange with anything resembling grace, it was perfectly legitimate for him to ask for clarification. It was an awkwardly worded question and the interviewer was unclear as to whether the context supposed to be the last two years or today.

This is the kind of thing that takes sportsmanship out of politics and feeds ‘gotcha’ journalism.

CTV should not have run this clip. It was beneath the dignity of that broadcaster and unfair to Mr. Dion for them to have done so.
_______________

UPDATE: Seriously?

On Feeling Canadian

The Canadian Flag

I never feel more Canadian than in the Fall.

I have the privilege this year of pursuing a degree in international relations at the University of Waterloo. All across campus this morning, and into this afternoon, crisp, colourful leaves lined the walkways and danced with the breeze. My nation’s emblem shed its magnificent, evocative image over everything my eyes could see.

The clear, sharp air ran behind my ears and around my neck as I walked more than a kilometre to my destination this morning. I meandered underneath a vibrant guard of honour, and I tread upon soil whose homes live under the mantle of a pivotal moment in an empire’s history. Waterloo.

Each morning for the last weeks I’ve risen to the sound of politicians, mere politicians, arguing, accusing, convincing. And I thank God for it. This country of ours has known liberty longer than many, and used it more wisely than most. This country of ours has been built upon ancient foundations, our constitution stands in immutable affirmation of those principles, those practices and those ideals which bore the language and the laws that inspire us still.

As I walked this morning, I was lost in a recurring thought I have now and again. I wrote a poem once, years ago. I can’t remember the foot and I can’t recall the rhyme; but the poem was a question: what if history is not a linear project, but instead one corpus into which all Nows are rendered. Not a cumulative experience, but a living and fresh one, renewed – but not changed – with each generation, as a sea shore is with each new tide.

It is in this spirit that I draw near to the men and the women who preserved a way of life at London, Amherstburg, Newark and Queenston Heights; at the Chateauguay River and on Lake Ontario. And I am still for a moment.

And when my mind returns to my proud province and my ravishing dominion, I acknowledge the cosmopolitanism, the atomisation, the technocracy and the rootlessness which stand at the antipode of those bold and gentle values to which my very person is indebted, and I stand in between. Not in certainty, but with enough of it.
_______________

I know not the fate of the country I love.

But I never feel more Canadian than in the Fall.

Sides of the Coin

John Meacham and Evan Thomas have a stellar piece in Newsweek, which was posted today at RCP. Entitled “The Vices of their Virtues”, the medium-length write-up makes the case that undecideds now have a perfectly good basis on which to evaluate the two US presidential candidates – and it comes down to character.
_______________

They portray John McCain as passionate or hot-headed, depending on taste. From his intention to fire the chairman of the SEC (which presidents can’t do), to his declaration that the economy is in “total crisis”, to his distasteful and ineffective body language during the first presidential debate, by which he signalled anger, frustration and disrespect toward his opponent – John McCain obviously “shoots from the hip”, as the article says.

They portray Mr. Obama, conversely, as “Mr. Cool”. He’s remained remarkable calm throughout the period of economic turmoil which (one hopes) came to a head with the US govt’s $700 bail-out plan. He doesn’t like lofty rhetoric on foreign policy, and his bearing is unshakeably steady.

_______________

It’s a great piece, and you should read the whole thing. It implicitly – well, kind of explicitly at one point – makes the observation that Obama and McCain are the two sides of a really great coin. Calmness and grim determination. Critical judgement and nationalism. Intellect and instinct.

After reading as much as I can, discussing with friends and betters, and giving the whole damned thing a lot of thought, I’ve drawn a tentative conclusion about my feelings on the candidates, especially regarding foreign policy.

I like McCain’s instincts on IR and I like his rhetoric. But I can honestly not get a feel for his underlying philosophy. Matt from FPW and I recently had an exchange about this, and he insightfully noted that McCain is what some would call a Jacksonian – a nationalist whose impulses are driven more by passion that methodical strategy.

I like Obama’s perspective on how to restore America’s credibility in the world (not to mention, I think Obama’s nearer the mark on taxes and education, as well). I like his liberal-internationalist faith in the ability of states to foster an atmosphere of increased trust and mutual-benefit amid our anarchic global system. I like his perspective that negotiation – after careful planning, and rooted in both the national interest and the interest of global stability – can not be conflated with appeasement, and that moral authority is translatable into usable power on the world stage.

The bugger of it is that I still believe he was and is wrong on Iraq. He was utterly wrong to advocate for a troop withdrawal when things were going terribly in Iraq. This stands out like a pulsating, rashed, hang-nail laiden thumb smack in the middle of an otherwise cogent and moderate IR perspective.
_______________

We know about their temperaments. We know how this translates into foreign policy. And we know Sarah Palin should not be trusted with the Resolute Desk.

For a sometimes-half-hearted but fairly consistent McCain supporter, this is a bitch of an election.

Experience Must be Matched with Grit, Vision, Principle

The title of my latest column printed today in the Guelph Mercury.

Cheers,
M

Obama as a Major Ideological Departure

Democratic Presidential Nominee, Senator Barack Obama (Il)

Fouad Ajami had an interesting piece recently in the WSJ. He made the case that the prospect of an Obama presidency represents the most profound ideological shift in American foreign policy since WWII.

So the Obama candidacy must be judged on its own merits, and it can be reckoned as the sharpest break yet with the national consensus over American foreign policy after World War II. This is not only a matter of Sen. Obama’s own sensibility; the break with the consensus over American exceptionalism and America’s claims and burdens abroad is the choice of the activists and elites of the Democratic Party who propelled Mr. Obama’s rise.

Down a little further, he entertains Obama’s gut instincts about American power.

Though the staging in Denver was the obligatory attempt to present the Obama Democrats as men and women of the political center, the Illinois senator and his devotees are disaffected with American power. In their view, we can make our way in the world without the encumbrance of “hard” power. We would offer other nations apologies for the way we carried ourselves in the aftermath of 9/11, and the foreign world would be glad for a reprieve from the time of American certitude.

And finally, he describes Obama’s cultural and political intuitions, and contrasts them against the McCain candidacy.

Mr. Obama truly believes that he can offer the world beyond America’s shores his biography, his sympathies with strangers. In the great debate over anti-Americanism and its sources, the two candidates couldn’t be more different. Mr. Obama proceeds from the notion of American guilt: We called up the furies, he believes. Our war on terror and our war in Iraq triggered more animus. He proposes to repair for that, and offers himself (again, the biography) as a bridge to the world.

Mr. McCain, well, he’s not particularly articulate on this question. But he shares the widespread attitude of broad swaths of the country that are not consumed with worries about America’s standing in foreign lands. Mr. McCain is not eager to be loved by foreigners. In November, the country will have a choice between a Republican candidate forged in the verities of the 1950s, and a Democratic rival who walks out of the 1990s.

_______________
Now, Ajami strikes some familiar chords here and some of them resonate with me. America is, as Ajami writes, an imperial republic with myriad hard power responsibilities across the globe.

Barack Obama is too embarrassed over Bush’s presidency and wears his discomfort with American global military dominance on his sleeve. And I don’t like it.

But. It is also not clear to me that Obama represents the most profound ideological sea-change in post-war American foreign policy. Is there not a case to be made that perhaps President Bush the Younger has a legitimate claim here?
_______________

Ivo Daalder, former Clinton administration national security staffer and Brookings Institution think-tanker makes just this case in America Unbound.

On pages 12-13, Daalder lays out the foundational beliefs of the Bush Doctrine.

… first… in a dangerous world the best – if not the only – way to ensure America’s security was to shed the constraints imposed by friends, allies and international institutions…. Moreover, formal arrangements would inevitably constrain America’s ability to make the most of its primacy.

…

The second belief was that an America unbound should use its strength to change the status quo in the world…. The Bush philosophy instead turned John Quincy Adams on his head and argued that the United States should aggressively go abroad searching for monsters to destroy. That was the logic behind the Iraq War, and it animated the administration’s efforts to deal with other rogue states.

The Bush Doctrine – whether you love it, hate it, or some of both – represents a significant departure from post-war US foreign policy. (Though I am not yet convinced it constitutes a veritable revolution.) As promient IR scholar in the realist tradition, John Mearscheimer, persuasivey wrotein his contribution to openDemocracy:

The American military, in their (the neo-conservatives’) view, would swoop down out of the sky, finish off a regime, pull back and reload the shotgun for the next target. There might be a need for US ground troops in some cases, but that force would be small in number. The Bush doctrine did not call for a large army. Indeed, heavy reliance on a big army was antithetical to the strategy, because it would rob the military of the nimbleness and flexibility essential to make the strategy work.

And this strategy, enabled by the Revolution in Military Affairs, writes Mearscheimer, in turn enables Big Stick Diplomacy, which in turn facilitates a bandwagoning effect in international realations, whereby countries the world over are in awe of American will and power and her ability to replace regimes relatively effortlessly, and therefore fall in line when the situation turns critical.

But the Bush administration’s Big Stick diplomacy doesn’t seem to rival Obama’s IR agenda for the “major ideological departure” award in Ajami’s view?
_______________

It seems to me that Mr. Ajami’s real beef is with Obama’s rhetoric – not so much his policies. Ajami’s second thesis – that Obama’s deepest intutions about American culture and power are very different from those of most president(ial nominee)s, is spot on. But Obama has articulated a pretty standard liberal-realist foreign policy agenda.

From what the Obama campaign has said so far, the Democratic nominee endorses an agenda that neither normalises pre-emption and preventative military actions nor explicticaly eschews them in principle; an agenda which seeks to further embed American power within the existing political, security and economic global order, as a means to integrate potentially belligerent great power competitors into the community of responsible nations. It is an agenda which affirms US exceptionalism (“… if Musharaff won’t act – we will.”), whilst acknowledging that perception and prestige are real, honest-to-goodness power assets in the mdoern global security environment, and that for America to abuse her prerogatives is to weaken the appeal and political viability of the Anglo-American order.
_______________

Mr. Obama’s rhetoric on foreign policy is troubling to the tradtional American patriot – to the Andrew Jackson crowd, august bevy that it is. For his own good, and that of America should he win in November, he ought to frame his IR policies less as a promise tod eliver the world from the Bush administration and more to defend the nation he loves in the best way he can according to the best traditions he knows. More Truman, less Dukakis.

But to suggest Obama’s IR policies are radically out of sync with post-war American foreign policy in general is to overstate the case. Ajami has a bone to pick with the Obama-Biden communications team – not the IR advisors.

Canada Heads to the Polls

Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaelle Jean, Governor General of Canada, has accepted her Prime Minister’s advice. Canada’s election has now begun.
_______________
Green Shift

Prime Minister Harper kicked things off this morning with a strong, brief five-minute pitch.

It is clear that the main themes of the campaign, if the Tories have their druthers, will be Stability v. Risk; Common Sense v. Irresponsible Experimentation. If the Tories succeed in framing the ballot issues and writing the narrative of the campaign, these charicatures will dominate the news cycle.

As you know, the central battleground where these Conservative v. Liberal orientations will clash is Liberal Leader Stephane Dion’s Green Shift carbon tax plan.

This is a classic example of “be careful what you wish for”. Stephen Dion and his Liberal colleagues a few other guys wanted the Green Shift to set the electoral agenda. Mission accomplished. Now they’ve got to sell the damned thing.

_______________
Constitutional Issue

There’s been a lot of squabbling about the constitutionality of the Prime Minister “breaking his own law” in the pursuit of an election before the fixed election date of 9 October 2009.

This is a non-starter as an election issue, for one thing.

For another, there’s a perfectly reasonable case to be made that the Conservatives’ actions break neither the letter nor the spirit of the fixed-election legislation. Tory strategist Aaron Lee Wudrick makes it here.

I remain unconvinced that fixed election dates can be successfully grafted into the Westminster model. The Westminster system bears its own native mechanisms for stability and it is not clear to me that fixed election dates can be meaningfully and workably interposed upon it. As Canadians – not inevitably, and not necessarily forever – lose touch with Canada’s British constitutional orientation, and remain pathetically ignorant of political tradition and history in the British Commonwealth, they will be more amenable to this type of republican/populist legislation which codifies convention and marginalises custom. This can only weaken the Westminster system; not strengthen it. It can only erode its ancient and practicable constitutional features; not replace them.

Perhaps – and from where I’m siting, only perhaps – there is some merit to setting a fixed election date in a majority government scenario. It might mitigate the blatant abuse of prime ministerial prerogative in a way that does not circumscribe British constitutionality in general. What do you think?
_______________
Future Commentary

As a grunt in this campaign at the riding-level, it is only prudent that I shouldn’t wax philosophical with too much regularity throughout the present election cycle. Don’t expect too much on the Canadian election from me: my focus in this journal will be US and international politics until mid-October.

Hang In There

I’m presently piggy-backing on a neighbour’s wireless signal. It’s such a finnicky and slow connection I dare not even take the time to insert a funny picture or post any commentary.

Just saying hi – and remember, I’ll be back in no time.

Your correspondent from this hellish world of communications-technology barbarity,
M