Tuesday, May 23, 2006

Latest Ipsos-Reid Political Poll


This finds that the Harper Government is currying great favour with the Canadian electorate. One has to wonder just what conclusions the government and caucus will draw from this positive reaction?

* Will they ascertain that their moderate tone and policy is the reason for the positive response?
* Or will they interpret this as validation and support for the entire policy-book of the CPC?

Rational people would recognise that the former is likely the reason for the nice bump in the numbers.

But are these rational people?

Their reaction to this poll is the first real test of their ability to govern from the broad Canadian centre - which is loyal, moderate, reasonable, and predominantly English-speaking.

My sources in Quebec tell me that the support for Harper is based on two things and two things only: Provincial-Rights and Tax-Relief. The problem here is that Harper can only appease the nationalist Quebecker so much, before he begins to turn-off the Canadian Federalist voter. That just leaves him with tax-relief - which, if he engages in too much, will further weaken federalism in Canada.

Quite a quandary isn't it?

Which is why successful governments in Canada govern from the centre. That is where compromise is to be found.

Monday, May 22, 2006

Happy Victoria Day !

God Save The Queen! Long May She Reign.


Tuesday, May 16, 2006

The Militarisation of the Canada-US Border ?


There is no doubt that the US has the Right to put Troops at the Border, but it is truly necessary? Again, that decision is up to their government, but one has to one wonder just how desperate the Bush Administration is now after an astonishingly inept six years in Office.

In watching some CNN last night, I heard again (during the phone-in session with Anderson Cooper and Nancy Grace) some more balderdash about "19 terrorists having come across the Canadian border." Neither Cooper of Grace corrected the caller with the facts.

So there you have it - the myth that Terrorists crossed the Canadian border into the USA continues to fester within the United States. (The only incident I can recall was in 1999, when authorities caught would-be Islamic terrorist Ahmed Ressam entering at Port Angeles with a trunkload of explosives. That is about two years previous to 9/11. Not one Terrorist associated with 9/11 came in from Canada.)

Again, the US Government can do as it wishes on their side of the border. I do not dispute that right one iota. However, it would be nice to see the Bush administration make a decision based on FACTS, rather than on urban myth, or a political calculus - at least once in a while.

Oh, I forgot, this is the SAME government that invaded Iraq with falsified evidence of WMDs.

Wednesday, May 10, 2006

Iran and the United States - "1979 Redux?"

The re-emergence of tensions between Iran and the United States was perhaps inevitable. In reality the tensions never really abated that much, but one can certainly ascertain that the struggles in Iraq have much to do with the current sabre-rattling between the two.

The whole sad situation in the Middle-East is largely an American creation. And not just in terms of the recent events post-9/11. In reality, the maintenance of the Pahlavi regime by Anglo-American, but certainly a mostly American influence, has laid much of the groundwork for today's troubles in the besotted region.

I am generally a staunch supporter of Israel as a beacon of Western Civilisation in the Middle-East, but the tragic reality is the genie was really let out of the bottle (forgive the analogy ...) in 1956. For it was at Suez that the US Government and their Liberal minions in Canada dropped the ball. Had the US and Canada supported the Anglo-French Invasion it is very possible that two things could have evolved: (A) the Canal Zone would either be in Western Hands, or at least in the Hands of the United Nations, or (B) there would have been a region-wide War much earlier in history, that would likely have ended with some form of a Mandated settlement and occupation. Either way, the forces of modernisation and civilisation would have been implanted.

But No. The US and the United Nations beat back the Anglo-French force and put the region into a crisis - borne of isolation from civilising influences. Nasser seemingly won the day, and the forces of Islamist radicalism and nationalism were allowed to fester - thereby plunging the region into potentially greater chaos in 1967 and 1973, the latter year which saw Richard Nixon contemplating the use of Nuclear Arms in defence of Israel.

Six Years after the Yom Kippur War, the Shah's regime went down in flames. Fairly soon thereafter, Iran and Iraq were at War with one another. The United States, with a poor view to the future, again chose to support one of wrong sides and supplied Saddam Hussein with as much support as they could in that War. Of course, Hussein then thought he had a free-hand in the region and would later use that freedom to invade Kuwait. Which was opposed by Who ? The Americans of course ...

This fueled the Iranian flames of hatred for the USA even more, and would provide even more impetus for the Iranians to provide much financial and ideological support for the Palestinians throughout the 1980's & 1990's. This further destabilised the region and forced the Israelis to adopt harsher measures - which in turn fanned more flames of hatred throughout the Islamic world.

This is how we got to 9/11. And I am leaving out many more damning details ...

And now Iran is apparently trying to build a P2 Centrifuge, which can be used to develop Nuclear Weapons capability. Of course the US opposes this - as they must, but the fact remains that this is a bad situation that has been continually mismanaged by the US Government and US Intelligence for close to 60 years.

Could we finally be approaching the "end-game" in the region ? I see that China will no longer stand in the way of the US, with respect to Iran. That just leaves Russia now.

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose ...