Three months after the federal Conservatives passed their budget, with the support of the Liberal party (outside of Newfoundland & Labrador), members of all three opposition parties are calling for Finance Minister Jim Flaherty to resign, or be fired, from his position. These calls come at the heel of Flaherty’s recent announcement that the Federal deficit will be much higher than predicted -- $16 billion dollars higher, to be precise.

In January, the Conservatives, who promised during the Federal election in October 2008 that there would be zero deficit spending, forecasted a deficit of some $34 billion in 2009-2010. Prior to that, in the Conservative's economic update in the fall of 2008, Flaherty had predicted a surplus for 2009. Now Flaherty is saying the deficit will run over $50 billion dollars. If things continue at pace, we’ll soon find ourselves in hole much deeper than that.

However, Jim refutes the opposition’s demands that he step down or be fired, saying “I’m busy doing my job.” That may be true, but clearly, he’s not doing it very well. Indeed, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has gone so far as to call Flaherty’s “handling” of the economic crisis “incompetence on a historic scale.” Perhaps a little harsh, there Michael, but then again, maybe not. Ignatieff went on to (correctly) tell the House of Commons that “Canadians are tired of these sorry ‘guesstimates’ – they want to know the truth” about how far deeper in debt we’re going to get as these recession days continue to pile up.

For his part, Prime Minister Stephen Harper was quick to call Ignatieff a “hypocrite”, slamming the Conservative government one moment for running a deficit, then demanding the government spend more money the next.

Of course, Steve has a point: it can’t be easy trying to fix a system that’s inherently fucked while pandering to opposition politicians who are vying for a chance to run the show. Then again, Harper offers no realistic answer to Ignatieff’s question, passing the buck back to the economy, saying the deficit spending will end when the economy rights itself. However, there is globally no sign of any economy righting itself as of yet, so I for one, am not holding my breath on that one.

Meanwhile, other economic shenanigans abound across the Dominion. While upwards of 300,000 jobs have been lost since the Conservatives promised not to run a deficit if reelected in October 2008, board members of the Canadian Pension Plan, which recorded losses of $24 billion in 2008, awarded clearly inept executes some $17 million in bonuses in the past 2 years.

NDP leader Jack Layton called out the Prime Minister, who approved the bonuses, on this issue. In their inimitable style, Harper and Flaherty shrugged off these criticisms, with Steve saying, “That is a board decision, not a government decision.” Enough said, right? I mean, those board members only lost $24 billion of tax payers money, while Harper and Flaherty are in the process of potentially pissing away upwards of four times that amount.

So: should Finance Minister Flaherty step down, or should the PM fire the bastard? Conversely, should a man who less than a year ago, while much of the world was already beginning to feel the “credit crunch”, predicted Canada would enjoy a surplus of government funds this year be allowed to keep his job in the face of what is approaching an $80 billion-plus deficit?

In the real world, far removed from the chauffeured, air-conditioned bubble of Ottawa, this sorry bastard would have lost his job months ago. Such is life. Tighten your belts, friends -- this shit storm is just beginning!

President Obama will visit Ottawa on Thursday. On the agenda are talks regarding the tanking economy, Canada’s withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2011, energy securtiy and Alberta’s oilsands. You can bet Arctic sovereignty will receive at least passing mention, though how far either Obama or Prime Minister Harper are willing to run with it is another question. No real news, there.

State-side, Obama very recently signed off on an almost $800 billion dollar bailout package, while the Federal government here has been busy dolling out the money from our own $40 billion deficit spending spree.

Bruce Campbell, not the actor of B-movie fame but the director of Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, a left-wing think tank, recently released a report condemning the Harper government for “piggybacking” on the American stimulus package while failing to offer any genuine leadership or initiative to combat the failing economy at home. "Rather than talking about the virtues of free trade with the American president, the Conservative government should be implementing its own 'Buy Canada' policy in order to create jobs here in Canada," Campbell told the CBC.

Indeed, the NDP party was quick to champion a “buy Canadian” amendment to the federal budget, a suggestion that was dismissed with contempt by the Conservatives and, of course, not included in the final budget. Obama, for his part, told Canadians they “shouldn’t be too concerned” with Buy American provisions when he talked to CBC news on Tuesday, February 17, 2009.

In a conversation with Chris Hedges, political philosopher Sheldon S. Wolin spoke of the many troubles facing the Obama administration in the months to come:

As if the shitty economy wasn’t enough, the unraveling situation in Afghanistan refuses to go away too, and Canada is ready to get the hell out when our commitment ends in 2011. To date, over one hundred Canadian soldiers have died in Afghanistan, and with very little that any politician can show for it. For his part, Obama has angered many of those of the anti-war persuasion by committing to raise troop levels in Afghanistan by over 50% in the coming months, something that amounts to approximately 17,000 troops being sent to the area if the New York Times is to be believed.

With such doom and gloom on all major fronts, it is easy to see how Obama and Harper will be unwilling to talk in depth about the “dirty oil” problem facing North America’s energy security. It’s just too goddamn sticky.

However, the pesky issue that many would rather was swept under the carpet is being thrust into the limelight by affected Micisew Cree and Athabasca Chipewyan First Nations and the environmental group Forest Ethics, who placed a full page advertisement in USA Today urging the President to consider the implications of using “the diritiest oil on Earth.”

Alberta, for their part, denounced the whole ad as nothing but special interest groups raising disproportionately loud voices, citing their recent “20 Year Plan” for “Greening the Oilsands” as proof of their commitment to the “sustainability” of oil sands development. The 50-page document published by the provincial government, however, offers no insight into how this will be accomplished.

Like a true optimist, Obama told CBC’s The National that “technology” will solve the filthy problems created by stripping the oil out of Alberta’s bitumen deposits. The issue has long been on the people''s agenda for Obama's trip. As a president who made Change his trademark, pulling America from the teat of cheap oil has got to be among his top priorities. He is undoubtedly going to lean on Canada, in some way, to take one for the team, or so he would have Peter Mansbridge believe.

I have no illusions that the grip Canada or America has on the teat will lessen voluntary any time soon, but better we let up now and save ourselves the trauma of a violent separation later.

Speaking of violent separation, Harper has also said he would not even consider bringing up the case of Omar Khadr with the visiting president. All three opposition parties have publicly called upon the Prime Minister to appeal on behalf of Khadr, who was arrested as a minor in Afghanistan in 2002, and who has been held, since, in Guantanamo Bay. That’s shitty, hey?

So, when Obama and Harper are hanging out Thursday, enjoying Ottawa’s finest beef on the public’s tab, we can all rest assured they will be talking about “issues that matter.” Our respective media establishments have assured us that it is so, and thus we can go on with our dreary, doom filled day with no fear: America’s president and his semi-elected Canadian counterpart are on the case. Hell, Obama’s friends with Spider-Man, right? Shit, no problem! They got this shit on lock-down, right? Right?!?


Dean Jensen lives in Winnipeg, MB, where he writes for The Manitoban.

In less than a week, president elect Barack Obama will be President Obama. Shortly thereafter, he’s promised he’ll be taking his act up to Ottawa for a meeting with Prime Minister Stephen Harper. As of now, no date has been set for this meeting, but Reuters is announcing agenda updates regarding the controversial oil sands issue. Many in Canada have been discussing the president-elect’s upcoming visit. Indeed, it’s the talk of the country if the CBC is to be believed on this one. They’ve even gone so far as to put together a “Canadian playlist” for the President to present to him upon his arrival.

Yeah, weird hey? Of almost equal interest in the Canadian media are the issues that the President –– who campaigned with the promise of “Change” –– will discuss with a Prime Minister who clings to power through a series of parliamentary holding patterns and whose policies over the last three years have mimicked the Bush administrations as far as the minority government’s weak mandate allowed? Where, if any, is the common ground these two share?

An aside here for those who don’t live in Canada: I figure this “minority government” business ought to be explained straight away. An editorial in the recent edition of Canadian Dimension lays it out like this:

Presently, Stephen Harper’s Conservative party does not hold a majority of seats in Parliament, but something like 144 out of 308. Over the last month, he has held on to control of the government by suspending parliament in the middle of an economic crisis. His hold on the country is tenuous, with something like 38% of votes in an election where turnout was lower than 60%. (A previous Newswire post, It's a Leftist Takeover, Canadian Style, broke it down rather well.)

What common ground could they possibly have? Stephen Harper appears like a goofy, yet sinister robot programmed into the body of a Child of the Corn, while Obama appears to be a genuinely decent person, as far as politicians run. Or maybe I’m wrong.

Time will tell –– and Reuters is telling me right now –– that Alberta’s oil sands development, a key part of the outgoing U.S. administration and Prime Minister Harper’s Conservative party’s North American (key word being “American”) “energy security” agenda. Steve admits, frankly, “We've got to do a better job environmentally” in the tar sands.

Harper then goes on to explain, however, that “the development of these things is pretty important, in our judgment, to North American energy security.” If you have heard this fucking guy talk about anything, you'll know this means he doesn’t give a shit about anyone's security but his own; He will continue in any direction that will keep Alberta’s –– and his own –– fortunes flowing. Secondary concerns, such as the environment, are quickly pushed to the side in Harper’s Canada, as proven by his track record for slashing federal funding for environmental organizations and initiatives.

The tar sands development poses serious threats to the environment, as it involves tearing down a boreal forest that covers most of the northern half of the province in order to suck oil, at massive cost in terms of money, fresh water, energy –– not to mention the ecosystem. Northern Alberta is a goddamn mess, plain and simple, and in tearing up the earth, they are wreaking major environmental damage to not only the immediate area, but the entire watershed, which flows northward into the North-West Territories, poisoning the water and food sources of many communities downstream.

Fort Chipewyan is a fucking awful example of what is happening already up there without the additional multi-billion dollar projects planned. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet were so concerned, they even scampered northwards to check out the tragic scene this past summer. The dollars invested in developing this dubious source of petroleum are staggering. Fresh water is diverted from rivers and used to steam thick bitumen oil from the soil in a process that takes approximately 4 liters of fresh water to produce 1 liter of bitumen oil. That water is then left to sit in “tailing ponds” close to the Athabasca river, where migratory birds die by the hundreds every spring and fall.

The list of fucked up shit involved when discussing the tar sands is astronomical. Just where Obama will stand on this issue, among others, will certainly set the tone for the relationship his administration will hold with Prime Minister Harper’s (minority) government –– should it last long enough to enjoy a visit from the new president. Will Stephen Harper try to navigate the waves of change and abandon his hard-nosed shit blind backwoods neocon trip for the easy sail? Time will tell, I guess. Nothing to do but sit here and wait on it…

djensen lives and writes in Winnipeg, Manitoba

Now, that headline may seem like a biased generalization about Republicans, but it is a scientific fact according to Psychology Today. Suddenly everything makes sense and I can actually feel a bit of empathy for these obtuse, sad creatures.

Wow. Conservatives started being annoying at age 3. They were the ones doing all the crying and whining and making life tough the well-adjusted liberals. Excuse me, I meant self-reliant, energetic liberals. So, what kind of horrible, fearful life have conservatives lived since then? We can look to a 2003 study involving 22,000 participants.

So, there you go, scientific proof that conservatives are awful, scared people. Until now I hadn’t realized that people actually responded positively to Bush saying, “I’m the decider.” Fascinating. It’s like a look inside a badger den – even more horrible than I could have imagined. It’s all shit, claws and hair.

What about liberals? How about everything that is good in the world?

Thank you liberals, for art and happiness. Too bad conservatives are also scared of art.

Even amidst the jingoistic hysteria that swept the nation briefly following the 9/11 attacks, many progressives were aghast when the USA Patriot Act was passed through Congress with barely enough time to have the legislators read the front page. Not because progressives support terrorists, as some "commentators" suggest, but because the vague wording of the law outlining limitations of how terrorists are defined and how it was to be enforced gave law enforcement far more leeway than most people, liberal or conservative, would normally be comfortable with. Since its passage it has remained a popular target for Democrats and Libertarians but more traditional conservatives have more or less stayed silent on the subject. However, that is starting to change, as poor screening based on the Patriot Act is defining refugees as terrorists and preventing their immigration to the US, some of whom fought alongside US soldiers.

Welcome to... 2002. But better late than never, and having conservatives groups support the Democratic congress as it attempts to change the Patriot Act away from its current Kafka-inspired form will be a major help in letting people know this isn't just a partisan political issue.

An example of just who is being affected by the Patriot Act clearly illustrate how poorly conceived the original language in it was.

Some thanks for helping out in Laos.

Fortunately prominent conservatives are openly talking about how the Democratic takeover will help fix this problem - something which would have been tantamount to treason in the eyes of many Republicans just a few years ago, but is a testament to the changing fortunes of team Bush.

Long overdue. It's about time this turd of a piece of legislation were put to rest and something better replaced it. Certainly the threat of terrorism is frightening and the US needs to do what it can to prevent future terrorist attacks. But the Patriot Act was the wrong answer, it was another example of a quick and easy but poorly conceived fix that did little to fix anything. Ironically, if left in its current form it will likely end up hamstringing law enforcement who use it as a justification to arrest suspected terrorists, since judicial appeals that show how their civil rights were trampled in the process could end up being the "technicality" that sets them free.

After six years of disastrous rule, many conservatives are coming to the obvious conclusion that the Republicans need to be checked. The reasons are many; the war in Iraq, insane spending even the Democratic Party would be ashamed of, expanding government, and some of the most impressive corruption since the Tea Pot Dome Scandal. In the latest Washington Monthly, seven true conservatives explain their reasons for wanting the Democrats to win the 2006 elections.

How bad do you have to be for the people in your own party to want you tossed out? Real bad. And they all have different reasons. According to Christopher Buckley it’s Bush and his crazy religious beliefs.

Bruce Bartlett thinks the Republicans need to lose, for their own good.

Joe Scarborough cuts deep with his article “And We Thought Clinton Had No Self-Control.” Being called worse than Clinton? Ouch.

William A. Niskanen has come to the conclusion that our government should always be divided. That would be the only conclusion you could reach after your party takes over the entire government and is a total embarrassment to democracy.

Bruce Fein wants to restrain George Bush from destroying the government that our Founding Fathers set up.

Jeffrey Hart thinks Bush is a looney.

Richard A. Viguerie puts a number to the angry Republican masses and says, quite simply, that the Democrats must take over the House.

And to all of these gentlemen I say, "No fucking shit."

George W. Bush has managed to be a lightning rod of progressive criticism unlike any other president we've had since Nixon. He's the perfect combination of traits that every liberal loves to hate; he's a rich, white man from an overpriveliged background who never did a hard day's work in his life, speaks before he thinks, espouses reactionary evangelical Christianity, disregards constitutional limitations on his power, and kowtows to the religious and neoconservative right for all his decisions. It's no wonder he's so unpopular amongst the left. What is more surprising, however, is the increasing amount of flak that he's taking from the right. Talk at the heritage foundation suggests that Bush isn't being active enough in pursuing an aggressive solution (either through the front door or the back) to resolving the nuclear situation in Iran. The American Enterprise Institute, another conseravtive think tank, continues to excoriate Bush on his pursuit of diplomatic resolutions to foreign policy crises. As a progressive it's mind boggling to think that anyone could consider Bush to be too moderate, but apparently his conservative base feels that's the problem.

And we've all seen just how successful the attempt to "mold history" have been. Iraq is now fully immersed in what many consider to be a civil war, with US and Iraqi casualties constantly mounting in a quagmire with no easy or near term resolution in sight. Maybe progressives have been too hard on Bush in his second term? If the time following his second inaugural address has been a return to approaching foreign policy crises with diplomatic solutions rather than the bellicosity that characterized his first term than it could signal a willingness to change in response to the facts of the situation, something that progressives like myself have always pointed out to be one of his biggest flaws. Granted, the problems in Iraq are pretty much exclusively those of his own making, so I'm not overly sympathetic to him, but if the jackasses who pushed him down this road of preemptive war are no longer happy with his attitude, maybe it's a signal that things are improving?