Softwood Lumber - From the US Perspective

I've been suspicious about the softwood lumber agreement ever since it came out that a sizable chunk was landing in BushCo's hands without any real oversight.

Over at Correntwire, we have a detailed analysis of that aspect of the agreement, along with a chilling analysis of how Bush may well use those dollars to continue his "rat on your neighbors" programs of illegal surveillance.

Anyone for asking our government why they are giving the US White House half a billion dollars to abuse the rights and freedoms of their own citizens?

So, what was that about Afghanistan

...being a "peace enforcement mission" last spring?

Is it just me or is there something wrong when we need to deploy heavy armour as part of a mission that is supposed to be about peacekeeping?

When HarperCrit rammed his little "extension" of the mission through Parliament this spring, we were only just starting to see the degree of chaos that is Afghanistan. No doubt, he had in mind an escalation of Canada's involvement in Shrub's little "War on Terror" at the time, and like the dishonest liar that he is, kept his mouth shut.

Just for fun, I see that Boeing is already bragging about being awarded some $8 billion of the government's procurement contracts for aircraft. (I'd love to see the bid process for _that_ contract) Remember, the government took these purchase contracts off the "open tender" system in June/July, not long after rumours started to swirl about the US "letting us have" a few of their C-17 class production run currently in progress to speed up the acquisition cycle.

So, what else is HarperCrit going to unveil in the coming weeks and months that he hasn't admitted to?

- Remember, this is coming from a party that ran on a platform of "open, accountable government".

More On Michael Coren

Last week, I took Michael Coren's idiocy about Iran apart.

This week, we are treated to Coren whining about the response to his stupidity.

Let's take a closer look at his complaints shall we?

As regrettable as such an attack would be, I argued, it would save countless lives in the long run. A conventional attack could fail and, anyway, not provide a sufficient shock to the torturers and serial killers who rule the Persian state.

I see, the opening volley is of course to claim that he was massively misunderstood. Horsefeathers - Coren argued quite unequivocally in favour of unleashing one of the most horrifying weapons systems mankind has ever created on another nation - plain and simple. There is no "mitigating" that by claiming that it would save "other lives".

The hysterical websites immediately went into action and told their readers to write and complain. I've been warned I could be taken to the Human Rights Commission and the Press Council. A campaign has been launched to pressure hosts of my forthcoming speaking engagements to cancel me and my family has been threatened.

Oh dear, annoyed a few people, did we? I will not condone the threats of physical violence that appear to have been made - those kinds of threats are simple thuggery and are of no redeeming value. On the other hand, did you really think, Mr. Coren, that given your public profile that people wouldn't try to go after your precious speaking engagements? Hello? I'm sorry to say, but that cannot come as a surprise, and frankly, if it were me that was hiring you to speak, I'd be seriously reconsidering that decision - fast.

Actually, I've been a strong supporter of justice for Muslims. I wrote a column during the Danish cartoon controversy urging people to understand why Muslims were so angry. I've called for funding for Muslim schools, spoken in mosques, won awards for my work in inter-faith dialogue.

Oh yes, the classic, condescending "some of my best friends are ..." defense. Newsflash - after making the statements you did, just about everyone in Canada who is of Middle Eastern descent should be asking themselves just how sincere your overtures really are. Clearly you aren't willing or able to even attempt to understand the cultural and political dynamics of that nation.

... I'm just a newspaper columnist giving an opinion about geo-politics and international peace in what is still, one hopes, a free country.

I keep hearing that "freedom of speech" thing being bandied about every time some wingnut case starts arguing for destruction of other people. Suddenly, they turn around and decide that it's a matter of "free speech" for them to be able spew whatever misguided, ill-informed vitriol that they choose.

I've seen Coren spew some amazingly ill-informed tripe over the years, and other than taking him to task on what he has written, I am more or less content to let him dribble his idiocy onto the pages of the Sun Media newspapers. However, he needs to realize that his right to "free speech" is not unbounded, and I can quite understand why people with relatives in Iran would be utterly horrified at Mr. Coren's suggestion.

If the Sun Media chain wakes up and drops this loon, I won't feel too terribly sad about it. I'm sure there's quite a business to be had speaking at the various "christian" white supremacist "militia" compounds in Montana...

Memo To Pope Ratz:

Get your nose out of my nation's politics - NOW!

According to the Pope, Canada is suffering from the pervasive effects of secularism” and pointed to “the plummeting birth rate” as proof..

Perhaps the best evidence possible of this being the Pope playing at politics is this statement itself. It's a classic "talking point" style from the political right wing - take two topics that are utterly unrelated and then presuppose a connection between them. The argument that the declining birth rate in "Western" countries is connected to secularism is deeply flawed. First of all, it supposes that secular society discourages children - it does not. Second, the argument quickly degenerates into a line of thinking that supposes that a woman's primary value in society is to give birth to children, and does not value them as children. Such arbitrary valuations arise not out of enlightenment, but out of the ignorance of those who have a need to perpetuate a "masculine hierarchy" of power. (Take a close look at the RC Church and its long held stance with respect to female clergy)

There's a few things about this that really irritate me - first of all is the blind presupposition that the Pope has that he can dictate law and political policy to entire nations - nations that he has never lived in, nor attempted to understand. Just as I think it is deeply flawed thinking on BushCo's part to "export democracy", I take similar umbrage at the Pope's attempt to export his morality to the rest of the world.

The second thing that annoys me is this bit of blatant stupidity:

“In the name of tolerance your country has had to endure the folly of the redefinition of spouse, and in the name of freedom of choice it is confronted with the daily destruction of unborn children,” the Pope said.

Both of these are arguments buried in the logic of ignorance and a dramatic failure to comprehend the legal structures of this nation.

The legal notion of spouse changed in this country as soon as common-law couples became "equivalent to married" for the purposes of property and divorce. I didn't hear the Popes complaining about this since over the years, largely because that one small change in law was something that specifically works to the benefit of women and children - who otherwise found themselves left destitute should the relationship collapse. The second aspect of the error in the Pope's argument is the failure to recognize the distinction between personal morality and legal relationships. There are many places where secular law is obliged to diverge from the desires of individual faiths. In fact, the very fact that Canada has no "official" religion means necessarily that our laws cannot legislate based upon the arbitrary moral declarations of a religious leader.

The second part of the Pope's comments is the classic whinge about abortion rights for women. I find this particularly offensive on several levels. First, the Catholic Church's prohibitions against abortion ignore the risks that a woman takes when she is pregnant. Second, it ignores the consequences of rape and incest on women. Last, it reduces women to being little more than baby bearers who are held hostage to the "madonna/whore" contradiction by their husbands. In the last century or so, women have become much more in control of their fertility. We understand the biology of conception fairly well, and women have availed themselves of that knowledge quite actively to gain a degree of control over their own destinies.

While there are aspects of abortion that disturb me, I think that the Pope errs in assuming that a woman is unable to make an intelligent, moral decision for herself. Unwanted pregnancy impacts women disproportionately to men, and in the past condemned the woman to both poverty and social ostracization - for the "sin" of getting pregnant. It seems to me utterly reasonable that a woman can make a moral decision on such a matter, in either direction.

If the Pope is so worried about the "evils" of secularism, I suggest that he focus his attentions upon the decision making that goes on in the boardrooms of the corporate world. Business has become amoral to a degree that should positively frighten the pope, and it has done so in ways that are truly damaging to people's well being. It strikes me that attempting to regulate people's sex lives, and reproductive lives, is not merely foolish, it is doomed to fail.

The "Decider"

Harper's tact filter must be nearly nonexistent. Yesterday, we heard Mr. Harper before a Senate committee blathering on about how he's going to introduce a bill to "reform" Canada's upper chamber.

The bill itself doesn't strike me as terribly interesting - especially since it is mostly in the form of politcal vaporware known as rhetoric. I'll discuss my thoughts on whatever Harper proposes when the legislation is actually tabled in the house and I can review it.

What I found striking were a few other things that Harper said during and after his meeting with the Senate:

Liberal Senator Jim Munson questioned Harper about the possibility that he would "fight an election on the backs of the Senate."

"Well, don't give me the opportunity," Harper replied. He said there would be political consequences if Canadians become convinced that any kind of Senate reform became impossible.

How typical of the bully - if you can't persuade people to think your way, your undermine and threaten them with vague "consequences".

It's amazing how "top-down" this supposedly "grass roots" Conservative party has become. For something that is supposedly driven by its membership at the grass roots, it's a serious non-sequitur to see Harper making such dictatorial statements. But it's not that surprising either.

Bubbling out of the cesspit of The United States right wing, we have a book being published by DoubleDay that argues that the reason for the current "war on terror" that Bush is waging is really the fault of "liberal" values and social change. The author's thesis is that women's rights, gay rights, no fault divorce law, etc. enrage not only Islamic, but other religious cultures around the world, thus making the the United States a target for their outrage.

Besides being horribly misguided thinking (he might take a look at the track record of US "interventionism" in the world for a few clues), the author is basically arguing for a rollback of civil rights.

Now, how is this significant? It's quite simple - the Neo/Theo-Cons are not conservatives at all. The are in fact social regressives. They idealize a social structure and society that existed at the peak of the 19th century, and had a mild rebirth after WWII with the "nuclear family".

When you look at how Harper is acting (very top-down, hierarchical), and you examine the Neo/Theo-Con view of society, the "liberalization" that they are so critical of takes away their ability to control the "lesser power" players in society. The sexual revolution of the 1960s stripped them of their ability to "control" women's destinies; liberalized divorce laws further weakened their power grip.

The civil rights movement that boiled over with Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King removed the notion that civil society needed to be segregated along racial lines {oh yes, do I need to point out the obvious that society has not yet crumbled from that change?} Who did this affect - wealthy, white, male, power brokers. The people whose political and economic interests were dependent upon their control over a subjugated underclass of "colored" people.

This leads me back to Harper and his governance. Why is he so top down? Simple - the particlar brand of "conservatism" he subscribes to idealizes hierarchy, and works on the notion that control is power. Harper's made it clear that he doesn't like being questioned (other than flattering questions - like "Gee, Mr. Harper, why's your deficit so big?") Along with his ideological companions, he is threatened by the notion that someone he perceives as "lesser" on the totem pole might possibly rise out of his direct or indirect control.

Such thinking is positively archaic, and it ultimately relies upon the ability of these people to have a target group to marginalize. The more target groups they have, the better - that way the misery they inflict is "spread about", and is less likely to result in a violent uprising. (until the groups being marginalized figure out what is happening, of course)

Speaking of Media Bias...

Remember back in May, Stephen Harper had a major temper tantrum over the Parliamentary Press Corps?

On CBC's As It Happens tonight, I learned that the first cracks in the Press Corps solidarity have emerged - in the form of CanWest Global's people being ordered to put themselves on "Harper's List of Approved Questioners" (any resemblance to Ko Ko's "Little List" in The Mikado is purely coincidental, I'm sure...).

My first thought was a "WTF?". This doesn't make sense. Then the interviewee mentioned that the new Chairman of the Board at Canwest happens to be one of Harper's friends. A quick dig through Canwest's corporate website turned up this little gem which announces that Derek H. Burney was taking over the Chairman's role in CanWest Global.

Okay, who the hell is Derek Burney in the first place? It turns out that he has roots in politics that date back to Mr. Mulroney's government. As for being close to Stephen Harper, well, I'd say that heading up Harper's transition team is plenty cozy a relationship.

So, if that doesn't speak to someone attempting to control the media in a Ralph Klein style, I don't know what does. Days after assuming the Chairmanship of Canwest Global, the Canwest members of the Parliamentary Press Corps are suddenly ordered to sign up on Harper's little list of "known to be safe" questioners. (We all know the kind - they don't dare ask a hardball question for fear of being struck from the list - much like a backbench MLA in Alberta doesn't ask too many pointy questions of Cabinet if they wish to advance beyond the back benches).

Now, what was that I keep hearing about the "Liberal biased media", again?

It's beginning to look like a good time in Canada to start up a Canadian version of Alternet.

Conservative Negotiators Need Viagra

If for no other reason than to ensure that they stand upright. The more we find out about the Softwood Lumber "deal" that Harper and Emerson have been bragging about, the worse it gets.

The NDP has been researching the deal's clauses, and has discovered that Harper's "wonderful deal" that will save taxpayers millions of dollars leaves the Canadian Taxpayer on the hook for any shortfall resulting from lumber companies refusing to sign onto this deal.

We aren't talking about a few million dollars, either, but hundreds of millions of dollars:

The call comes one week after the announcement by the Harper government that it fell short on the number of softwood industry approvals needed for a buy-in – but refused to release the vote totals. Julian estimates that the Canadian government will have to send a cheque to Washington for at least $152 million (m) if the Minister misses his mark by 15 % and that number will rise dramatically with each company unwilling to drop their softwood-lawsuits.

Let me see if I understand this - for every company that doesn't "sign on" to this deal by dropping its litigation in the United States, the Canadian Taxpayer is on the hook.

Now, let's talk about principles, Mr. Jackson. So far, Conservative "principles" seem to have become an aggregation of arrogance, entitlement and bad government. We have a party that claims a "made in Canada" environment policy that so far is the policy equivalent of vaporware; a trade "deal" with the United States that must have BushCo laughing all the way to the bank, while Canadian taxpayers carry the freight; a "peace mission" in Afghanistan that was extended by Conservative fiat; Military purchases being taken out of the public accountability and open bid processes in the name of "security". Yes Mr. Jackson, you support a wonderfully "principled" party - sadly the key principle appears to corruption and dishonesty on a scale that make Brian Mulroney look like an honest broker.