<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Softwood Lumber</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.benedictionblogson.com/2005/08/29/softwood-lumber/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.benedictionblogson.com/2005/08/29/softwood-lumber/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 20:04:20 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: So, what&#8217;s up with the White House Canuck Softwood Slush Fund? at Bene Diction Blogs On</title>
		<link>http://www.benedictionblogson.com/2005/08/29/softwood-lumber/#comment-22036</link>
		<dc:creator>So, what&#8217;s up with the White House Canuck Softwood Slush Fund? at Bene Diction Blogs On</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Sep 2006 12:14:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ss75.shared.server-system.net/~benedictionblogson.com/?p=1690#comment-22036</guid>
		<description>[...] Technorati: Softwood Lumber search Technorati: White House Slush Fund Prior posts on the Softwood Lumber Agreement at BDBO: http://www.benedictionblogson.com/?p=1690 http://www.benedictionblogson.com/?p=1681 http://www.benedictionblogson.com/?p=1697   Published 29 minutes ago      // Used for showing and hiding user information in the comment form function ShowUtils() { document.getElementById("authorinfo").style.display = ""; document.getElementById("showinfo").style.display = "none"; document.getElementById("hideinfo").style.display = ""; } function HideUtils() { document.getElementById("authorinfo").style.display = "none"; document.getElementById("showinfo").style.display = ""; document.getElementById("hideinfo").style.display = "none"; } [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Technorati: Softwood Lumber search Technorati: White House Slush Fund Prior posts on the Softwood Lumber Agreement at BDBO: <a href="http://www.benedictionblogson.com/?p=1690" rel="nofollow">http://www.benedictionblogson.com/?p=1690</a> <a href="http://www.benedictionblogson.com/?p=1681" rel="nofollow">http://www.benedictionblogson.com/?p=1681</a> <a href="http://www.benedictionblogson.com/?p=1697" rel="nofollow">http://www.benedictionblogson.com/?p=1697</a>   Published 29 minutes ago      // Used for showing and hiding user information in the comment form function ShowUtils() { document.getElementById(&#8221;authorinfo&#8221;).style.display = &#8220;&#8221;; document.getElementById(&#8221;showinfo&#8221;).style.display = &#8220;none&#8221;; document.getElementById(&#8221;hideinfo&#8221;).style.display = &#8220;&#8221;; } function HideUtils() { document.getElementById(&#8221;authorinfo&#8221;).style.display = &#8220;none&#8221;; document.getElementById(&#8221;showinfo&#8221;).style.display = &#8220;&#8221;; document.getElementById(&#8221;hideinfo&#8221;).style.display = &#8220;none&#8221;; } [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sherm</title>
		<link>http://www.benedictionblogson.com/2005/08/29/softwood-lumber/#comment-4880</link>
		<dc:creator>Sherm</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Aug 2005 17:50:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ss75.shared.server-system.net/~benedictionblogson.com/?p=1690#comment-4880</guid>
		<description>Apparently Canada may be at fault according to the World Trade Organization.  Lawyers seem to be the only ones benefiting from this situation, since that decision is now open for appeal.  Meanwhile, both sides suffer.  While Canada has the right to protect it's interests and should not let the US dictate how we govern our trade issues (ie. subsidized lumber or other industry), this complicated issue could go on for years.  If NAFTA is the final word, then it should be honoured by the US.  If the WTO is the final word, then Canada should comply. Zero sum game.

This could go one for years.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Apparently Canada may be at fault according to the World Trade Organization.  Lawyers seem to be the only ones benefiting from this situation, since that decision is now open for appeal.  Meanwhile, both sides suffer.  While Canada has the right to protect it&#8217;s interests and should not let the US dictate how we govern our trade issues (ie. subsidized lumber or other industry), this complicated issue could go on for years.  If NAFTA is the final word, then it should be honoured by the US.  If the WTO is the final word, then Canada should comply. Zero sum game.</p>
<p>This could go one for years.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
