I don't understand it

Canadian Press reports that the Harper government is going to stomp on the outstanding legal cases of the lumber companies who reject the softwood lumber deal.
And here's what I need somebody to explain.
The story reports:

The court earlier struck down the U.S. lumber industry's claim Canadian imports posed a threat of injury and was set to rule on whether the roughly US$5.3 billion in duties collected since May 2002 should be returned.

Why is the Harper government so damned eager to abandon the court cases which may well declare that ALL of the US duties are illegal? Wouldn't our bargaining position be stronger if we won this case?

Say No To Torture!

Digby is asking everyone to post this today.

Ahead of his time

Jack Layton:

Sept. 1, 2006 - Layton suggests talks with Taliban
Sept 2 to Sept 30 - pile-on here, and here, and here, and here, and . . .
Oct. 1, 2006 - British troops in secret truce with the Taliban
Oct. 2, 2006 - Frist: Taliban Should Be in Afghan Gov't

Line of the day

Its not "Great" but it is the line America will remember:

...don't forget to measure.

Moral idiots

This week Republican supporters have endorsed torture, military tribunals, and the suspension of habeus corpus.
So why wouldn't they also ignore Republican pedophilia?
By the way, whatever happened to the Cunningham/Wilkes prostitues-in-the-limousine scandal? And who kept giving Jeff Gannon those White House press passes anyway?

Afghanistan update

The Asia Times has an interesting article about Afghanistan -- interesting as in the old Chinese curse "may you live in interesting times". It covers a lot of ground in describing what has gone wrong there and why and is worth reading in full. Here is its section about future problems:

What lies ahead is, therefore, becoming extremely difficult to predict. Even with 2,500 additional troops [there are about 20,000 US troops there already plus about 20,000 from NATO including 5,400 troops from Britain, 2,500 from Canada and 2,300 from the Netherlands] it is highly doubtful whether NATO can succeed in defeating the Taliban.
For one thing, the Taliban enjoy grassroots support within Afghanistan. There is no denying this ground reality.
Second, the Taliban are becoming synonymous with Afghan resistance. The mindless violations of the Afghan code of honor by the coalition forces during their search-and-destroy missions and the excessive use of force during military operations leading to loss of innocent lives have provoked widespread revulsion among Afghan people. . . .
Third, . . . the non-Pashtun groups in the eastern, northern and western regions also [are beginning] to organize themselves. . . .
Fourth, at a certain point it becomes unavoidable that regional powers will get drawn into the strife . . .

I hope Canada is planning a real exit strategy, even if they won't announce one. By "real" exit strategy, I don't mean just the idiotic "whenever we win" approach, but rather a strategic plan showing both what we as an individual nation can realistically achieve over there and the fail-safe points after which we would reevaluate our military purpose.
I think we're going to need it.

Canadian Bacon

Harper was so anxious to get the softwood lumber deal in place by this weekend that he was going to use $1 billion of Canadian taxpayers' money to pay off the Americans.
It was part of this money that was going to create the $450 million slush fund for the White House.
The Globe reports that the deal is going to be delayed because about 20 per cent of the businesses covered by the deal - 86 out of 400 - refused to sign over their duty refunds to the government, and refused to drop their lawsuits.
Apparently, the government had thought they could "finesse" the holdouts by using federal tax revenues to pay off the Americans. However, they couldn't unilaterally nullify the lawsuits:

The agreement required Canadian firms to sign over their right to duty refunds to the federal Export Development Corp. so some of the roughly $5-billion (U.S.) could be retained by the U.S. government and American producers. The EDC would, in turn, give exporters 80 per cent of the duties they had paid.
A number of companies have refused to sign over their rights but Ottawa was expected to use taxpayer money to ensure the Americans received the guaranteed $1-billion.
However, the U.S. stipulation that all lumber-related trade cases be withdrawn was impossible to finesse, said Mr. Gray. "The last I heard, it was 86 companies out of the 400 or so had not signed," he said. "I think that's their single most important issue. Our rights are our rights in American courts and I don't know how they can take that away from us."

Emphasis mine
Personally, I'm glad the White House isn't getting their hot little hands on my income taxes just yet. I know its a pittance in the great scheme of things, but I earned it and I do care about how it is spent . . .

Who would be proud of what happened today?

MSNBC describes it as the "bill on terror detainee trials" while AP calls it the "detainee interrogation bill" and CNN says it is a bill "to prosecute and interrogate terror suspects."
They've drunk the Koolaid -- they begin by assuming that everyone presently in Guantanamo is guilty, and they don't seem to realize what this bill actually does.
The blogs tell it like it is. They call it the pro-torture bill, the torture bill, the Bush/McCain pro-torture bill, the Republican Torture Ratification bill, and the USA Mengele Act, while the New York Times describes it as "a tyrannical law that will be ranked with the low points in American democracy".
Here is the New York Times' summary of what Bush and the Republicans in Congress have done:

.. . held [accused terrorists] in illegal detention, had them questioned in ways that will make real trials very hard, and invented a transparently illegal system of kangaroo courts to convict them . . .[then wrote a law which gives to the President] the power to jail pretty much anyone he wants for as long as he wants without charging them, to unilaterally reinterpret the Geneva Conventions, to authorize what normal people consider torture, and to deny justice to hundreds of men captured in error.

So I got thinking about some of the other presidents we have known. What would THEY think about Bush's torture bill and the frightened, pell-mell rush of the Republicans in Congress to endorse Krystalnacht.

Would these two be proud of what Bush and the Republican Congress did today?


I don't think so.
And I'm sure he wouldn't be:


And not him:


Nor even him:


Definitely not him:


And not even him:

who once said "No man is justified in doing evil on the ground of expedience."

Why Conservatives Can't Govern

Via Suburban Guerilla, we find political scientist Alan Wolfe's summary of "Why Conservatives Can't Govern". Here's the gist of it:

Contemporary conservatism is first and foremost about shrinking the size and reach of the federal government. This mission, let us be clear, is an ideological one. It does not emerge out of an attempt to solve real-world problems, such as managing increasing deficits or finding revenue to pay for entitlements built into the structure of federal legislation.
. . . like all politicians, conservatives, once in office, find themselves under constant pressure from constituents to use government to improve their lives. This puts conservatives in the awkward position of managing government agencies whose missions--indeed, whose very existence--they believe to be illegitimate. Contemporary conservatism is a walking contradiction. Unable to shrink government but unwilling to improve it, conservatives attempt to split the difference, expanding government for political gain, but always in ways that validate their disregard for the very thing they are expanding. The end result is not just bigger government, but more incompetent government.
. . . As a way of governing, conservatism is another name for disaster. And the disasters will continue, year after year, as long as conservatives, whose political tactics are frequently as brilliant as their policy-making is inept, find ways to perpetuate their power.

I'm very much afraid that Canadians will find that this applies just as well to Harper's Conservatives as it does to Bush's Republicans.

Great line of the day

From Tristero at Hullabaloo:

David Ignatius asks, in a genuinely stupid column, "How do we prevent Iraq from becoming a failed state? "
Step One: Bush and his entire cabinet leave office.
Step Two: Wait for Step One.
Until then, it is inevitable that Iraq will stay firmly on the path towards becoming a failed state . . . . And, no, it's not that Bush et al were incompetent that [the war in Iraq] failed. That's backward. The Bush administration demonstrated its total incompetence because it took a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq seriously and thought it could succeed.

Still crazy after all these years

So I guess the Star Phoenix thinks that improving working conditions for rural women in Saskatchewan is too 'strident" and "out of the mainstream".
And I guess the Globe and Mail thinks its more seemly and genteel to worry about museums than to worry about Canadian fiscal policy barriers to working women.
Ah, crazy feminists!
Can't we ever just be satisfied with what we've already got?
The Star Phoenix says that Status of Women Canada "too often has come to represent the more strident of the women's movement rather than the diversity or the mainstream" while the Globe says "there is no rule that existing programs must continue forever" and "Surely Status of Women Canada. . . does not need to exist in perpetuity".
Ouch -- strident AND useless.
No wonder the Harper government cut their funding -- for goodness sake, what did we feminists expect?
Well, lets just take a look-see at the crazy, irrelevant things what SOWC has been doing lately. I looked up their planning document for 2006-07, and here's what the harpies are whining about now:

Although the situation for women and girls has improved, inequality persists over time in several key social and economic areas recently measured:
- In 2001, women made up 52 percent of those graduating with a bachelor's or first professional degree.
- In 2004, women accounted for 47 percent of the employed workforce with increased representation in several professional fields and managerial positions.
- In 2004, women contributed $185 billion through wages and self-employment to Canada's Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
- Women provide two-thirds of the unpaid work time (care of children, sick and elderly) spent in Canada. Women's unpaid work constituted the equivalent of 12.8 million jobs to the economy in 1992 at a value of about one third to one half of the GDP-equalling as much as $374 billion.
- Overall, women continue to have significantly less income than men.
- Women who are immigrants, disabled, a visible minority or Aboriginal are more likely to live in poverty than men.
- Violence and abuse begin early in life for many women and girls, and the effects can last a lifetime.
Almost every indicator shows that Aboriginal women face severe barriers to equality and inclusion. According to recent Government statistics, the life expectancy of Aboriginal women is more than five years shorter than that of Canadian women in general, and they are more likely to live in poverty-36.4 percent as compared with 17.7 percent. Aboriginal women are also more than three times more likely to be assaulted by their spouses than are Canadian women in general, and they are eight times more likely to be killed by their spouses after a separation. Aboriginal women who have status under the Indian Act, and who are between the ages of 25 and 44, are five times more likely to experience a violent death than are other Canadian women in the same age category.

And here are some of those "strident" studies published in 2005 and 2006:

Hidden Actors, Muted Voices: The Employment of Rural Women in Saskatchewan Forestry and Agri-Food Industries (Posted August 24, 2006)
Equality for Women: Beyond the Illusion Final report of the Expert Panel on Accountability Mechanisms for Gender Equality (Posted July 17, 2006)
Farm Women and Canadian Agricultural Policy (Posted July 13, 2006)
Policy Research Fund Publications (1996-2006) - CD ROM(April 2006)
Gender and Trade: A Policy Research Dialogue on Mainstreaming Gender into Trade Policies(March 2006)
Report on Status of Women Canada's On-Line Consultation on Gender Equality(Fall 2005) Human Security and Aboriginal Women in Canada(December 2005)
Polygamy in Canada: Legal and Social Implications for Women and Children - A Collection of Policy Research Reports(November 2005)
Women and Employment: Removing Fiscal Barriers to Women's Labour Force Participation(November 2005)
Aboriginal Women: An Issues Backgrounder(August 2005)
Poverty Issues for Canadian Women(August 2005)
Rural Women's Experiences of Maternity Care: Implications for Policy and Practice(July 2005)
Indian Registration: Unrecognized and Unstated Paternity(June 2005)
Public Policy and the Participation of Rural Nova Scotia Women in the New Economy(May 2005)
Increasing Gender Inputs into Canadian International Trade Policy Positions at the WTO(May 2005)
Policy Research Fund Publications (1996-2006) - CD ROM(April 2006)
Retaining Employment Equity Measures in Trade Agreements(February 2005)
Making Family Child Care Work: Strategies for Improving the Working Conditions of Family Childcare Providers (January 2005)

And by the way, Mr. Globe Editorial Writer, those poor, poor museums which can "rarely obtain operational funding from other sources" can at least raise a few bucks on their own by charging admission.
Maybe Status of Women Canada can raise its own money with one of those "naked calendar" stunts -- yeah, and we'll get Belinda Stronach and Tie Domi to pose for it.
Of course, Belinda may complain that this is sexist, but what does she know? Surely sexism doesn't still really exist anymore in Canada . . .

Great lines of the day

Juan Cole:

Bush told Wolf Blitzer he thought Iraq was a comma . . . But Iraq is very clearly an exclamation point. Now you know why the whole policy has been wrong. Bush has been trying to close off a dependent clause, not realizing he was forcefully making a declarative statement.

I love grammar witticisms. Though as Steve Gilliard notes, in another Great Line, the "comma" remark from Bush was actually Fundie-speak, or, as Steve put it, dog whistle:

When Bush said Iraq was a comma, he was speaking in dog whistle to the fundies. It comes from a saying "Never put a period where God puts a comma". Which means things will get better. Which is, of course, insane.

Emphasis mine.
UPDATE: Ian WeltchWelsh explains dog whistle politics. [Thanks for the correction, POGGE]

Shorter Canadian Press

CP thinks this is a news story:

I can't be bothered to examine the actual merits of any arguments against the Tory spending cuts. Its just so much easier to chortle about Tory payback to the people who didn't vote for them. What other 'news' could Canadians possibly need?

I'll stick with coffee, thanks

What a place to find a drowned bat!
Reminds me of a story --
What's worse than finding a worm in an apple?
Finding half a worm in an apple.

Pointy-Haired Boss

Two weeks after 911, Bush reportedly described his job this way:

"I have to manage the bloodlust of the American people."

Well, I guess he managed this just like he managed everything else -- poorly.