Liberating Hans Island

2011-07-11T14:36:00.000-07:00

If BHO were to be charged in court of being an intelligent, educated, well-spoken representative of Harvard Law would there be enough evidence to convict?

Why the push to liberate HANS ISLAND?

2006-06-17T15:03:00.000-07:00

Well, "why not?"

Justice cries to be heard. This link help sets the scene, and also provides a small reference map to provide badly needed context for the casual reader, probably one who - in the comfort of their own home - has never heard of Hans Island. But remember, the news source itself is biased and cannot be fully trusted.

And so the effort begins. Plans are even now being adjusted and completed. Action operations are being organized. Any day now untold dozens of Yanks are likely to spring into action and march (or maybe 'row' would be a better term) to Hans Island , intent on "liberating" its masses.

Oh, btw, does anyone know if Hans Island has a high point upon which a group of freedom fighters might be pictured 'hoisting' a flagpole for some type of commemorative and award-winning photograph? Just thought I'd ask.

It Ain't Necessarily So - More on Softwood Lumber

2005-09-15T14:07:00.000-07:00

Based on my earlier read a couple of weeks ago on Simply Put, and what little I could 'google' on the issue afterwards, I became guilty of buying into the theory that the US was being a very naughty neighbor to our northern cousins vis-a-vis the ongoing Softwood Lumber dispute, et al.

Today I discovered another site, the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports, and have now learned to appreciate another side to the coin. The view is much different from here. In this version the Canadian government comes across as bullying, reckless and unwise, even almost intentionally diabolical, because it is pushing for increased timber production - and of course, sales, even at times when the lumber market has been in a sharp decline - which means already harvested lumber currently in stock at retail outlets can be purchased on the market for less than its original value. Does this ring a bell for those comprehending merchandising? Isn't this "dumping"? Doesn't this lead to bankruptcy?

This situation is the apparent result of a long-standing Canadian decision to keep lumberjacks at full employment regardless of the market demand for their product. Doesn't anyone in Canada see the ultimate train wreck potential in this?

And if you are a lumberjack who does NOT have the 'benefit' of this wonderful boon to full employment (read 'American') when the market is down and has already been flooded with "dumped" goods, then you can simply starve for a season or two, until the market catches up - if it ever does. Seems fair to me. Or else you join a coalition and can fight the 'dumping' all the way.

The outcome of this silliness on behest of the socialists-in-charge in Ottawa has become a rhubarb of the loudest variety between two neighbors, causing feelings to worsen and threats to be spoken. All in the interest of sustaining a European style socialist experiment being played out in the forests of Canada. Thankfully, it is lumberjacks they are working with, not buggy whip makers. If that had been the case we don't know what could have happened in the world's prisons if they had been flooded with dumped buggy whips!

There is an interesting contrast to this case that few have mentioned. US subsidized grain growers versus their unsubsidized Canadian cousins. The situation with this commodity is almost exactly reversed, with many Albertan and Saskatchewan farmers going broke or barely making 'bean money' while their southern neighbors are making out big time with Federal supports all the way to the bank.

Is there room for reasonable compromise on these issues somewhere, sometime soon?

Softwood Lumber Dispute Links

2005-09-14T11:24:00.000-07:00

Here is one link to this issue with a great amount of background material.

And here is another with updated information.

Ripping off the lumberjacks

2005-08-24T17:48:00.000-07:00

The well-spoken "Q", of Simply Put, is uncharacteristically ticked off at US. Read "American government shows contempt for the rule of law" posted today, 8/24, to see why.

And he may be right. But he's only reading/hearing one side of the coin, and that side wants desperately to be 'right' [even though the government making the charge is Liberal - tee hee, tee hee].

His facts may be spot on, and his assumptions may be correct. We may owe them (collectively) both an apology and a huge refund. The problem for me is when I Google this I only get news from the Canadian POV. Nothing definitive about the US administration's thinking on this matter. Literally nothing (as of about 5 days ago). The only passing US comment I found (citation gone with the wind) was a comment about, "Playing this out using all of the US's options". Whatever that means.

That doesn't sound like we're just being stubborn or rude. It sounds like a good legal principle to follow. But I could be wrong. Several weeks ago I heard in passing something about the New England softwood producers who work on their own tab, and were being financially harmed by Canadian softwood firms who are subsidized by their premier, et al. DonÂt know more than that.

It sounds like the NAFTA hearing group ruled against that claim. But is there no higher jurisdiction to hear an appeal if one side or the other feels a ruling is unjust? I don't know the answer, but am curious to find out. I totally agree with Q en re: NAFTA not being my spot of tea, nor am I interested in the myriad of commercial dealings betwixt our countries.

And I would not put it past the folks in DC to tell them to "stick it in your ear" because of about 10 years worth of Liberal idiocy towards the US. One other rub might possibly be the strong international push their premier has been making to force US troops and the administration to fall under international law, something that if it were to ever happen would violently rip this country - and possibly theirs - asunder, probably even worse than that shindig in Boston harbor lo those many years ago.

I am also cross posting this on Q's site by leaving a lengthy comment.

Cheers

Kind and Gentle

2005-08-24T14:59:00.000-07:00

Canadian's have become so kind and gentle, it seems it would never occur to them to complain if another peoples group were to waltz into their homeland and assume control of their country. They would probably not even notice the difference. Particularly if it were done in a way so as to fail to disturb them any worse than would, say for instance, the cancellation of an entire hockey season - as if that could ever happen.

This blog is churlishly dedicated to those friendly folk who'd rather be known as "not American" than selected for service on the provincial council.