Friday Post

Quickly now...


Stephen Harper mulls selling more of Canada off a full free-trade agreement with China:

Last January, Eddie Goldenberg, former Chrétien chief of staff, and John Weekes, Canada's chief negotiator on NAFTA, penned a column for the Globe and Mail arguing Canada must negotiate a free-trade deal with China now or get left behind.

"The case for building a closer economic relationship with China for the long-term economic advantage of both partners is overwhelming," they wrote.

"Time is not on our side. New Zealand, Chile and the ASEAN countries have negotiated free-trade agreements with China, and Australia is currently negotiating one. Canada cannot afford to wait until everyone else has a deal. Bold political leadership is needed in both countries to work toward that objective."

David Emerson, Harper's former trade and foreign minister, told the National Post he'd love to see a free-trade deal struck with China.

"You can't sell stuff in Canada and be globally competitive. You have to open up markets and we don't have any trade agreements in Asia," he said.

"We need to have a more aggressive, collaborative relationship with China."

In less than six years, the Harper government has concluded free trade agreements with nine countries—Colombia, Honduras, Jordan, Panama, Peru and the European Free Trade Association states of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland.

Canada has also launched negotiations on a number of trade agreements, including with India and the European Union, two of the largest markets in the world.

Even in South America, despite criticism, Harper chose economic gain over human rights in signing trade deals with countries that have dubious records.

Why would China be any different?

How many Canadian-made products can one buy in Canada or China? Compare that to Chinese-made products sold in Canada. What is the ratio? We send natural resources like wood pulp and minerals to China. In exchange, they send us things like apparel and toys which could be made safely here.


Who is getting the raw deal?



Related: what if China were to give our uranium to North Korea?



Obama still thinks Catholics are stupid:

President Barack Obama, in an abrupt policy shift aimed at quelling an election-year firestorm, announced on Friday that religious employers would not be required to offer free birth control to workers and the onus would instead be put on insurers.


But Catholic Church leaders and Obama's Republican opponents, who had railed against the Democratic president's new rule on contraceptives as a violation of religious freedom, signaled that divisions remain over the hot-button social issue.

The compromise by the Obama administration sought to accommodate religious organizations, such as Catholic hospitals and universities, outraged by a new rule that would have required them to offer free contraceptive coverage to women employees.

Instead, the new approach puts the burden on insurance companies, ordering them to provide workers at religious-affiliated institutions with free family planning if they request it, without involving their employer at all, the White House said.

"Religious liberty will be protected, and a law that requires free preventive care will not discriminate against women," Obama told reporters in the White House briefing room as he sought to put the political furor to rest.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops called Obama's move a "first step in the right direction" but said it was still concerned about the issue and would reserve judgment.

Weighing in publicly on the issue for the first time, Obama acknowledged that religious groups had "genuine concerns" about the birth control rule, but he accused some of his opponents of a cynical effort to turn the issue into a "political football."

"The result will be that religious organizations won't have to pay for these services," Obama said. "But women who work at these institutions will have access to free contraceptives just like other women."

The rule had sparked an outcry not only from Catholic leaders but from social conservatives, including Republican presidential hopefuls on the campaign trail, and had also sown dissent among some of Obama's top advisers.

Health insurance giant Aetna Inc said it would comply with the policy but needed "to study the mechanics of this unprecedented decision before we can understand how it will be implemented and how it will impact our customers."

If there is anything Obama is deft at it's self-campaigning, which is what he has been doing since he arrived in office. One might say that was all he was doing. That is unfair. He has also been playing golf.


But I digress.


Obama is good at self-promotion. If throwing a person or a group under the bus serves his purposes- in this case, Catholics and social conservatives- so be it. What he did not expect is how politically important they are to his already fragile chances at re-election. He has either completely ignored or conveniently forgotten the First Amendment and I don't think he cares a whit what the Church has to say about this. He does care about he thinks, though. If he cannot force Catholics to violate their principles for his personal beliefs, he can put the onus on insurers who would rather not have anything to do with this:

Health insurers said on Friday they feared President Barack Obama had set a new precedent by making them responsible for providing free birth control to employees of religious groups as he sought to defuse an election-year landmine.


Obama on Friday announced the policy shift in an effort to accommodate religious organizations, such as Catholic hospitals and universities, whose leaders are outraged by a new rule that would have required them to offer free contraceptive coverage to employees.

Instead, the Obama administration ordered insurers to provide workers at religious-affiliated institutions with free family planning if they request it, without involving their employer at all. Insurance industry officials said the abrupt shift raised questions over how that requirement would be implemented.

Most insurers already covered costs of contraception but Obama's plan makes them culpable.  He characterised this opposition as a "political football".


Well, who threw it?


Imagine this guy on the ticket against Obama:

The U.S. safety net is the unfortunate result of liberals who believe people are selfish robots, Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) argued Friday.


West delivered a forceful rebuke of both Democrats and government programs to help the needy as he addressed activists at the Conservative Political Action Conference.

“It is the liberal philosophy not the conservative one that views humans as selfish automatons,” West said.

“Liberals worry that what’s best for the individual might not be better for the public at large,” said the Florida congressman. “But that philosophy assumes something vicious about each and every one us. It assumes we only care about ourselves.”

“For far too long we’ve allowed the other side to paint us as racist, as sexist, inhumane war mongers well today as a conservative black Republican and former solider, I’m here to set that record straight,” West said.

He told activists that when conservatives object to expanded entitlements and redistribution of wealth, they are accused of having no compassion.

“Of course we have compassion. We just don’t believe the safety net should be used as a hammock,” he said to boisterous applause.

Yep. Good times. Good times.