Sue, why don't we?

Short of cash? Need some bucks? Just damage something you own, then sue yourself for damages!
Finally, an idea out of California that makes some sense -- City employee in California hits his own car - then sues himself:

LODI, Calif. (AP) - When a dump truck backed into Curtis Gokey's car, he decided to sue the city for damages.
Only thing is, he was the one driving the dump truck. That minor detail didn't stop Gokey, a Lodi city employee, from filing a $3,600 US claim for the December accident, even after acknowledging the crash was his fault.
After the city denied that claim because Gokey was, in essence, suing himself, he and his wife decided to file a new claim under her name.
City Attorney Steve Schwabauer said this one also lacks merit because Rhonda Gokey can't sue her own husband.
'You can sue your spouse for divorce, but you can't sue your spouse for negligence,' Schwabauer said. 'They're a married couple under California law. They're one entity. It's damage to community property.'

Great line of the day

AMERICAblog quotes Maryland state senate candidate Jamie Raskin testifying before a Maryland Senate Judicial Proceeding Committee, in response to a question from a republican senator about whether "god's law" requires marriage discrimination against gay people:
"Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You didn't place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."

If there is anything that will turn me against the Afghanistan mission...

... it is this type of thing:



Canada, cut it out -- there are perfectly good reasons to be opposed to the Afghanistan mission, just as there are good reasons to support it.
None of them have anything to do with D-Day or World War II.
This TAB cartoon promotes the idea that anyone who is against the Canadian involvement in Afghanistan is just being political, or cowardly, or unpatriotic -- and that is simply wrong. It also promotes the Bush conceit that Afghanistan and Iraq are comparable to the fight against the Nazis in World War II, inflating Bush into some kind of latter-day Churchill fighting on the beaches. Silly, stupid and dumb.
This cartoon also shows the divisiveness which flows from Harper's ridiculous "we won't cut and run" rhetoric, based on the inaccurate assumption that only cowards would not support this mission.
If the only reason to support this deployment is to score points against the NDP and the Liberals, then our "mission" really is baseless and purposeless at its heart. If the Afghanistan mission ends up being used by Canadian conservative politicians to promote the same kind of mean-spirited us-against-them bullsh*t which is polluting US politics now, then lets get those soldiers out of there immediately.

Demonstrating leadership

Bravo,Mr. Harper. Yes, the trip is a bit of a stunt, but it certainly makes it clear what his priorities are. And though he still wasn't totally clear about exactly what our "important work" is, at least he did talk about the importance of rebuilding Afghanistan. And its impressive that Stephen Harper is putting his own political credibility on the line to support the Afghanistan deployment.
He didn't wear a flightsuit, either, or carry a plastic turkey.

No guts

So is this going to be Harper's pattern -- getting all upset and outraged over perceived "personal" insults like the ethics inquiry, but then saying nothing when something as important as medicare is threatened? Is he just hoping that Klein's "Third Way" will go away all by itself? This story -- Harper avoiding showdown over Alberta's Third Way health plan -- doesn't offer any reassurance that Harper will take a stand, or even try to involve the federal government in a dialogue:

Harper may be hoping opposition within Alberta will convince Klein to drop the most controversial parts of the Third Way, but [Klein spokesperson] Etmanski says there is little opposition. She said the provincial government has received 10,000 letters about stopping the grizzly bear hunt, but only about 400 about the Third Way. 'People are taking time to take a look at it.'
Mike McBane of the Canadian Health Coalition said Harper's election promise to support the Canada health act is looking insincere. 'I think this is a question of looking the other way. It's a wink and a nod to the provinces who want to privatize - Alberta, Quebec and B.C. - that the federal government is not going to stand in their way.'

Today's great read

Here's a blog post which I think qualifies as today's "great read" -- at Somena Media, Meaghan Walker-Williams writes some great stuff about Coming Home to Canada:

I felt trememendous relief to be back home in Canada, when I got off that airplane and reached Vancouver. I was among my own. And I don't believe a word of this nonsense about how Canadian and American culture is becoming homogonized. I've lived in both worlds. I've seen the difference. To be sure, certain aspects of our culture that are less important to us are withering away or atrophing. But on the whole, Canadians talk differently, dress differently, value things differently and are generally just most "with it" (as far as I can tell) Americans are (and this is not really their fault) for the most part insulated and isolated in this huge bubble where beyond the US, the world exists, but it doesn't seem entirely real to them.

Why John McCain should never be president

Two reasons actually. This one:

And this one:

Basically, John McCain is a pathetic man, who long since sacraficed any principles he may have had to pander for power. He is a person of great charm, so he can go on the Daily Show and chuckle with Jon Stewart, but here's what he was saying at a Republican meeting this weekend:

. . . Mr. McCain went so far as to condemn the collapse of the port deal, saying that Congress had served Mr. Bush poorly by not permitting a 45-day review of security concerns, though he did not mention that the deal was sunk by fellow Republicans. "The president deserved better," Mr. McCain said. Mr. McCain praised the president for his failed effort to rewrite the Social Security system, said he supported the decision to go into Iraq and blistered at critics who suggested the White House had fabricated evidence of unconventional weapons in Iraq to justify the invasion. "Anybody who says the president of the United States is lying about weapons of mass destruction is lying," Mr. McCain said.

Reality is biting

Things have changed and here's the proof -- in this story on Rice talking to Congress about the Iraq war, reporter Robert Burns also mentions the anti-war protestor:

Rice's opening statement to the committee was interrupted by a man in the audience who stood and shouted, 'How many of you have children in this illegal and immoral war? The blood is on your hands and you cannot wash it away.' As he was escorted from the room by security officers, the man also shouted, 'Fire Rumsfeld.'

Three years ago, before the war began, the millions who marched against it got barely a mention. Now, we have a reporter quoting what a protestor said. Better late than never.

Which is it?

So either Harper is so immature and self-indulgent that he cannot control his temper long enough to even talk to Shapiro for an hour or two.
Or he actually does have something to hide about the Emerson floor-crossing deal.
Which is it?
Goggle News now lists 127 news stories with a headline questioning Harper's ethics.
Not exactly the coverage the Conservatives wanted, with several weeks still to go before the goodies in the speech from the throne will distract everyone.

Iraq end game

Joint Chiefs of Staff head Peter Pace said this weekend that Iraq was going "very, very well". Well, dream on.
Reminds me of a saying: I've been down so long it looks like up to me.
Today, the Washington Post has a major story about how Iraq morgues are now hiding the numbers of Sunni men being executed by Shiite militias and death squads.

Execution-style killings of the kind frequently blamed on police or Shiite militias allied with the government appear to be killing more Iraqis than bombings of government and civilian targets by Sunni Arab insurgents.

Steve Gilliard writes:

Americans have been awfully naive in dealing with the kind of violence in Iraq now exploding. It isn't just the resistance any longer, but the militias we tolerated to help keep order and failed.
None of Saddam's strategic challenges have disappeared, just the means for resolving them.
When the Iranians talk about inflicting pain on the US, people think oil. Well, that may be part of it, but so is a full throated Shia uprising. And that's a lot cheaper to start and hide than slowing oil production. Toss in a few kidnappings and the recipe for anarchy is right there.
The problem for US forces is the day the Iraqi Army goes home and chooses sides, leaving them totally exposed. Saddam's former UN ambassador was on CNN last night. He was chortling at being right and predicted many of the exiles would soon be leaving with the US. But he was right and there is little to say about him being right.
The end game is coming.

Why we are fighting

The Galloping Beaver writes a post entitled Whether you like it or not, our presence in Afghanistan is fully justified which answers many of the questions I had about what our troops are doing in Afghanistan:

. . . It is a stabilization force intended to provide protection for reconstruction teams and assist the new government of Afghanistan in defending against Taliban resistance. ISAF has full combat capability and has robust rules of engagement (ROE). Unlike the horrible ROE that come with UN Chapter 6 peacekeeping operations, one doesn't have to wait until one of his unit members is killed before shooting back. ISAF has full authority to gather intelligence, seek out the enemy and conduct combat patrols. Canada shifted from Kandahar to Kabul and ISAF in August 2003 and have had troop levels of up to 1,900 since then . . . The committment to see the transformation of Afghanistan into a full member of the world community and not a haven for terrorists has never changed.
The latest deployment comes at the request of NATO to have Canada command a brigade of multinational troops. It is a part of the initial committment to rid Afghanistan of the terrorist cadre that has occupied it for so long and to reconstitute that country with a government which is able to survive and provide for its own self-defence. Until they are able to do that, and until the necessary reconstruction is completed, Canada is committed . . .

I do disagree with Dave that a vote in Parliament is unnecessary -- I think it would be worthwhile to have such a vote, to explain to Canadians what we are doing there.
Take me, for example -- I actually thought I was following this stuff, yet there was lots in Dave's post that I hadn't known about what we are doing over there and why. So for all Canadians who haven't been paying much attention, its important that we know what Dave is writing about. Thanks, Dave.

Great line of the day

Canadian Cynic writes: "Apparently, the new approach to American national security is to pray like hell that nothing goes wrong. Yeah, that'll work."

We won!

MSNBC reports that Canadian centre fielder Adam Stern hit an inside-the-park homer, drove in four runs and made two sensational catches in center to help win the game for Canada 8-6 over the United States in the inaugural World Baseball Classic tournament now underway in Phoenix.
We caught part of this game on TV and it looked pretty good. Here are the boys celebrating their win.

CP's Shi Davidi describes the action:

. . . Canada opened the scoring in the first when Clapp tripled and scored on Morneau's RBI groundout.
It looked like the lead would be short-lived when the U.S. loaded the bases with one out in the bottom of the first but Loewen made a phenomenal pitch to Chipper Jones for an inning ending double play.
That seemed to inspire the Canadians, who picked up another run in the second on back-to-back triples by Aaron Guiel and Stern, three more in the third on Pete Laforest's RBI single and Stern's two-run single and another pair in the fourth on Matt Stairs' two-run single.
Stern added an inside-the-park-homer leading off the fifth to make it 8-0 before the Americans clawed back against the bullpen.
The U.S. was all over reliever Chris Begg to open the fifth, as Michael Young singled, Ken Griffey Jr., doubled him home and then scored on Derrek Lee's single.
Begg proceeded to load the bases before reliever Eric Cyr came on, and he fell behind Jason Varitek 3-1 before the Red Sox catcher crushed a ball making it 8-6.
Somehow the Canadians held on from there and stormed the field to celebrate after Morneau stepped on first to end things.

There is a chance we will win the pool now, depending on whether we win the Mexico game on Thursday. Keep on cheering for Canada, everyone. (Both AP Photos by Charlie Riedel)

"Men's rights"? Not so much.

This news story is titled Men's Rights Group Eyes Child Support Stay. But how dare they call abandoning a child to be a "man's right"?
This group, which call themselves the National Centre for Men, is promoting a lawsuit which argues that "If a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood."
This group acts like the child is some sort of legal abstraction who will disappear if a man choses to exercise their "men's rights".
As the story also notes, however, "most courts say it's not about what he did or didn't do or what she did or didn't do. It's about the rights of the child." Exactly.

We're there because we're there because we're there...

Shorter Peter MacKay: 'Our troops will stay in Afghanistan because they're already there'.
Hmm...
Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay apparently opposes a vote in Parliament about the Afghanistan mission because some MPs would vote against it: "The last thing we want to show is any wavering or any backing away from the commitment of our Canadian troops. We have to be 100 per cent behind them."
I guess he thinks our troops are stupid, and they don't know already that, depending on the poll, somewhere between 50 to 60 per cent of Canadians do not support the Afghanistan mission anymore.
So we aren't "100 percent behind them" even now. And they know it. But personally, I would think its more important to our troops that we make sure their mission in Afghanistan is important and worthwhile. What is it, exactly, we are asking them to die for? We had better make sure that we all know what it is.
I wouldn't say I oppose the Afghanistan mission, not yet anyway -- but I sure would welcome some discussion about what our troops are doing there.
MacKay couldn't actually seem to identify a real goal for our troops, like protecting cities or villages or making sure roads are safe for travel, or running special ops against taliban and warlord areas,for example. Instead, he just talked about how "this is the type of mission demanded in this day and age", that terrorism "has its roots in Afghanistan" and that we are "committed to fight with our allies".
And Stephen Harper is just as bad -- he says "You do not send men and women into harm's way on a dangerous mission with the support of our party and other Canadians, and then decide, once they're over there, that you're not sure you should have sent them."
Well, why not?
If the troops get there and find out they don't have a mission or they're not being used effectively or they're just cannon fodder or bait (which is how Canadian troops actually have been used at other times and in other wars) or the whole Afghanistan war has become a misbegotten, poorly-executed exercise in futility that is not worth anybody dying for, then I would hope we would get our troops out of there and the sooner the better.