So what is the truth of it?

Personally, I don't care about who leaked what about whom.
What's important is the truth of it -- will either Clinton or Obama actually renegotiate NAFTA or not?
This time, will the Americans negotiate a deal they can live up to, or will we have to go through another decade of court cases with obstructive American industries blaming Canada for their marketing problems?
And for our part, will the Harper government actually negotiate with the best interests of Canada at heart, or will their basic operating principle be just the protection of industries in Conservative ridings?

This is the way the world ends

Not with a bang but a whimper.
As Birth Pangs describes it so well, the Unborn Child Victims of Crime bill (AKA the Kicking Abortion's Ass act) is a "back-door attempt to again make women’s pregnancies public property". And tonight the pro-lifers are thrilled that the bill passed second reading.
SoCon Or Bust writes:

... the momentum is clearly moving in our direction. If not this time, it will happen in the future. It’s inevitable now.
Just give us a little crack and we’ll drive this

RIGHT THROUGH IT!
Little baby steps….easy does it.

And its not just the bloggers who hear the dogwhistle. The ordinary people who write letters to the editor all hear it too, like this one and this one.

Emery update

I was wondering what was going on with this case.
Apparently there's a deal being cooked up between the Canadian government and the Americans over Marc Emery, though it might not work out.

Marijuana crusader Marc Emery is blaming a clash of judicial cultures for delays in a plea bargain that would send him to prison briefly in the United States before serving several years in Canada. . . .
"What's at stake is the Canadian prosecutorial service doesn't think that it's possible to make a deal where a Canadian judge is compelled to do something specific, like put me in jail for a minimum length of time or set some kind of parole date," he said.. . .
A plea bargain was in the works that would see charges dropped against Williams and Rainey while Emery would plead guilty and receive a prison sentence.. . .
Emery said he finds the whole process odd.
"The Canadian government could just have me charged and that would lay the matter to rest and they wouldn't have to be concerned because some judge would come to a determination as to whether I should be incarcerated," he said.

But Canada won't charge him, because no Canadian court would convict him.
And that wouldn't satisfy the Americans at all.

Shorter

Well, given today's news, I guess we can do a Shorter Stephen Harper:

Why would anyone believe we would try to buy Chuck Cadman's vote ? It's the AMERICAN vote we're trying to influence!

Great line of the day

Dana at Galloping Beaver writes about Harper's law and order obsession:

There are some who understand just how much the Harperites intend to legislate changes in the culture of the country.
Unfortunately none of them are sitting on the opposition benches.

Cats

From I Can Has Cheezburger, via TRex

Well, duh!

Ottawa loses Wheat Board battle

The federal government has lost a court battle over the Canadian Wheat Board.
The Federal Court of Appeal has upheld a lower court ruling which said the Conservative cabinet exceeded its power when it tried to strip the wheat board of its barley monopoly.

Of course they lost -- the legislation is quite clear that if Ottawa wants to take the barley monopoly away from the Wheat Board they have to do it in Parliament, not by just a Cabinet order.
Just one more reason not to elect a Harper majority government.

Hot stuff

When I saw this story, I thought of this song.

Shorter

Shorter Brian Mulroney:

I'll do absolutely anything to clear my name...except tell anyone what actually happened.

Great line of the day

Tbogg, talking about Ralph Nader running for president again:

Ralph Nader is like Abe Vigoda; if people don't hear from him every once in awhile, they think he's dead.

Strange bedfellows

The sympathetic tone of some of the coverage about the Anglican church rift is hard to believe.
These so-called Christians, however personable and charming and soft-spoken are bigots, using the cover of religion to inflate their hateful prejudices into some kind of divine mission.
Just like Fred Phelps has done.
And when you find yourself on the same page as Fred Phelps -- well now, I would consider that as a pretty clear sign from God that you'd better reconsider.

Great line of the day

From James Wolcott, talking about how sexism is still alive and well among privileged white men:

...underneath the trash talk is the even more unattractive noise of white men whining because things aren't like they used to be. No, they are not. This news should have reached you by now and soaked in. Things haven't been like they used to be for about thirty years now, hell, maybe forty. So set your inner Pat Buchanan free in that patchy stretch of woods along the interstate and accept the reality of women's equality without being such a bullying baby about it.

Emphasis mine.
I used to tolerate it when older men said they just couldn't deal with women as equals, but I don't anymore. Iron this, buddy!

Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who

There's a new 'high-profile' report just been published by an unnamed and unelected group of 13 'academics and former diplomats' from 'both sides' who want Canada to turn the Arctic over to the United States.
Oops, sorry, not at all -- how could I be so paranoid?
They want Canada and the United States to "jointly manage Arctic waters".
Of course, us Canadians are just so paranoid. As Rob Huebert of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary describes it:

"The problem for the Canadian leader is: how do you actually start talking to the Americans without immediately having accusations that you're selling out on Canadian sovereignty?"

How indeed? Because, of course, that is exactly what you are doing, however glibly you might fling around phrases like "maximizing burden-sharing opportunities".
It sounds like the report features all the usual suspects:

The group has sent a list of nine recommendations to the two governments. They include a suggestion that the U.S. and Canada jointly develop rules on stopping ships in northern waters and on environmental, navigation and safety standards. They also call on the two countries to co-operate on immigration, search and rescue, and surveillance.

Immigration? Surveillance? How many people are crossing the North Pole illegally these days?
Oh, yeah. Them!

I love the internets

Try this one -- its the first one of a six part "drama" based on Photoshop: You Suck at Photoshop #1 Watch all six.

Alternate universes

Neil Kitson presents a vision of an alternate universe:

...let's imagine it the other way around. The Gigantic Islamic Republic of Asia (population one billion) decides that Canada is a failed state. The government of Canada is replaced by Shariah law, and 2,500 Afghan troops are dispatched . . . to oversee the Provincial Reconstruction Team in Sudbury. You can see how this would work. None of the Afghans speak English, so some local "terps" are hired to deal with the natives. The whole of the Afghan detachment would fit comfortably into the Sudbury Arena for a hockey game. Do these guys play hockey?
Various forward operational bases are established at North Bay and Sault St. Marie, but casualties are incurred during routine transport, and only helicopters are deemed safe. German tanks worth one billion euros are parked in Sudbury and forgotten. Unrest begins at home, but people are told "we might be in North America for 100 years," and "Muslims don't cut and run."

Meanwhile, Eric Margolis describes what is happening in the real world -- the one where Europeans "regard the Afghan conflict as a. wrong and immoral; b. America’s war; c. all about oil; and d. probably lost." So another side-effect of the Afghanistan war will be the breaking of NATO:

Europeans increasingly ask why they need the US-dominated military alliance, a Cold War relic, in which they continue to play foot soldiers to America’s atomic knights . . . Why does the rich, powerful European Union even need NATO any more? The Soviet threat is gone – at least for now. Nuclear-armed France and Britain are quite capable of defending Europe against outside threats. Why cannot the new European Defense Force take over NATO’s role of defending Europe and protecting EU interests? United Europe will inevitably field its own integrated military force. Arm-twisting Europe to fight a highly unpopular war in Afghanistan will only hasten this development . . .
By pushing NATO towards a bridge too far, the Bush Administration may end up fatally undermining NATO and encouraging anti-American forces in Europe.

You know, if Bin Laden has written a script, this would have been it...