Segacs's World I Know

Segacs's World I Know

Blog about politics (mideast and pro-Israel, Canadian and local Montreal), world events, and random thoughts.

The World I Know is updated on a semi-regular basis by segacs.

Think I'm the greatest thing since chocolate-covered strawberries? Think I'm certifiably insane? E-mail me at segacs2.at.yahoo.ca.

Buy me a present! Visit my Amazon Wish List.

Frequently asked questions about me and this blog.

Atom site feed

Comments are open and unmoderated, although obscene or abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of segacs's world i know.

<< List
Jewish Bloggers
Join >>

5.11.04

8:02 AM

Concordia will allow Barak to speak

Concordia University has had a change of heart. Reversing its initial decision to disallow the speech due to "security concerns", now Barak will be allowed to speak on campus:

Federation CJA has applauded this decision, and I hope that the support that the university receives from the public will convince them that they are doing the right thing by allowing the former PM to speak.

Many students will be upset by this decision, and I can understand why. They don't want more tensions, more headlines, or the risk of another riot. They just want the situation to calm down and go away.

But ultimately I believe that this is the right decision. I hope that the average student can understand the importance of defending free speech - not just for rioters, but for everyone.

If the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh had any kind of lesson, it's that certain kinds of speech are very dangerous, because certain groups have ensured that this is so. Upon hearing that news, Damian had this reflection:

Martin Himel, you will recall, was also behind the controversial documentary Confrontation at Concordia, about the 2002 Netanyahu riots.

The point here is that certain people are willing to resort to violence in order to shut down speech they disagree with. They cannot be allowed to succeed. Otherwise, they will grow bolder and bolder, until eventually the only speech permitted will be their point of view.

Concordia made the wrong decision at first. I believe that strongly. And their change of heart is a case of better late than never.

To all of you out there who may have written leaders or participated in the awareness campaign about this event, I believe you had an effect. Thank you.

To the students and alumni who will be upset or angered by this decision - including some members of a divided Hillel - please try to understand the larger implications of this decision, and realize that defense of free speech - while not always smooth - ultimately benefits us all.

And to anyone considering rioting: you may have thought you were victorious. This new decision proves you were wrong. If you disagree with Barak's message, feel free to mount a peaceful protest. That's what freedom of speech is all about. But I hope you think long and hard before resorting to violence again. That has absolutely no place in a free society.

4.11.04

4:30 PM

Reviled: Dead or Alive

With Arafat most likely brain-dead, in an irreversable coma, or already dead, we can expect a spate of whitewashed obituaries glossing over Arafat's record and legacy and making him out to be some kind of people's hero.

To counteract all that nonsense, Meryl has a roundup on pieces on Arafat's true legacy.

Yasser Arafat was a mass-murderer and a terrorist. He lied to the entire world, promising peace while plotting war. He thwarted his people's attempt for statehood at every single turn. He massacred Olympic athletes, hijaked planes, sent thousands of suicide bombers to blow up innocent Israelis, and murdered tens of thousands of Palestinians and Lebanese. His legacies consist of little other than terrorism and hatred, and that's exactly how he deserves to be remembered.

Update: Irreverantly hysterical quote of the day from Meryl: "He's no longer an Arafish, he's an Aravegetable. And he's going to be rotten soon enough."

1:44 PM

Is he or isn't he?

I had to post this Jerusalem Post screen capture, from 12:45pm ET, because I doubt we'll ever see anything like this again:

This is even worse than trying to predict the US election winner.

1:25 PM

Marking Arafat's passing

If and when the reports of Arafat's death are confirmed, Meryl's making a $25 donation to Magen David Adom as part of her Dead Dictators Pool Matching Fund initiative. I happen to think that it's an ironically appropriate way to mark the passing of a dictator who caused so many innocent people to need MDA's services, and I plan on joining her in matching it. If you'd like to do the same, visit her site for details.

For Canadian readers, you can send your donations to CMDA. (And yes, contrary to the issues of a couple of years ago, it's tax-deductible.)

Reuters, by the way, is calling this the "possible Arafat death". It's almost funny watching the reporters falling all over each other to get the contradictory news straight.

11:30 AM

Yasser Arafat is dead

CBC is reporting that Arafat is dead.

Arafat

I can't say I will grieve for him or mourn him. He was a terrorist responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent people - including large numbers of his own people.

But this is as much the end of an era as the beginning of one. Palestinians are sure to mourn en masse, even the majority of them who hated the man. He's the only leader they've ever really had. And his death creates an enormous power vaccuum that's sure to lead to Palestinian civil war. What the next 72 hours will bring is anyone's guess.

Update: The various media networks can't seem to agree yet even on whether Arafat is dead or alive. CNN says he's in a coma in critical condition. Reuters cites Israeli TV in saying he's "clinically dead". But Ahmed Qurie is denying this saying he's critical but still alive. One thing for sure: if he comes out of a coma after being declared dead, Arafat will have achieved the one thing still eluding him: godlike status.

Update #2: AP confirms that French media are reporting Arafat clinically dead, in an irreversable coma.

Update #3: Reuters now says he's still alive, making Arafat the only man in the world who can be both dead and alive at the same time.

11:03 AM

Moving to Canada?

From a Gazette editorial on whether disgruntled US Liberals will try to move here:

Meanwhile, Damian is amused by the idea that some of them could claim refugee status. Like him, I'd love to see them try.

9:37 AM

Arafat's turn for the worse

Arafat might - might - be in a coma:

Frankly I think the confusion stems from the fact that the media is used to taking the literal word of Palestinian aides for things. When that word agrees - such as on the "evil Israelis" - then it's seldom questioned, even in cases of obvious invention (the Jenin "massacre" that wasn't comes to mind). It's simply unfathomable to Western media that people could be speaking speculation as fact, or freely inventing facts when they don't have any.

I don't know if we'll ever know what's wrong with Arafat, whether he recovers or not. Except there's one thing we will know with clear-cut certainty: the Jews did it.

Update: Proving my point, now Arafat's aides are denying the coma story. Geez, he's in a friggin' hospital! You'd think this would be easily verifiable... either he is or he isn't. But the rumours are getting so abundant that it's starting to seem like a deliberate PA strategy.

1:54 AM

Ken Jennings breaks record

Jeopardy perennial champ Ken Jennings has broken the all-time game show winnings record on the episode that aired today, with his winnings of $2,197,000.

I wonder how many IQ points Jennings has over Bush. And I wonder what scenario is funnier: Jennings running for President, or Bush on Jeopardy.

1:51 AM

Hillary in 2008?

That seems to be the buzz.

But could she really win? Could she capture more votes than John Kerry did last night? Certainly she's more charismatic. She's a proven campaigner and she was probably the brains behind any good decisions that Clinton made during his term. And both she and her husband are evidently still hugely popular.

But would it be enough?

I can't help but think that... god damn, this election is just barely over! Can we give it a rest for a while before we start campaigning for the next one???

1:35 AM

Too much power

Bush winning the election is not what's making me so uncomfortable. At least, it doesn't make me any more uncomfortable than a Kerry win would have.

The trouble is, the combination of results that have given the Republicans another four years in the White House, significant gains in Congress and a virtual lock on the Senate all at the same time. That means that one side pretty much dominates all three houses - as opposed to the tenuous hold they had last term. And no matter what side the power is concentrated on, that is too much power for one team in a nation that is very much bitterly divided.

The GOP doesn't have much to hold them back now. Despite the fact that nearly half the country didn't vote for them, they have a popular vote win, a win on "their" issues in many direct questions, and pretty much a free rein to move the country even further to the right for the next four years - and, with Supreme Court appointments, for a long time after that.

Gay marriage is not an issue that should be decided by popular vote - because a majority shouldn't get to decide to deny rights to a minority. But look for the Republicans to push ahead for a nationwide constitutional ban on gay marriage, for no good reason other than because many people find the idea distasteful. In fact, this issue probably helped Bush win the election, by encouraging Conservatives to go cast a vote. Similarly, abortion is once again in trouble. We can probably expect a woman's right to choose being gradually chipped away in the next few years.

Many Kerry supporters are disappointed because they fear another four years of what they perceive to be devastating international policies by the Bush team. Personally, I'm much more concerned about the domestic American scene. In fact, the Democrats most likely lost this election by assuming Iraq was the only issue, and failing to make a strong case for their liberal values at home.

And with so much power concentrated on the Republican side, I admit I'm worried. I'd be just as worried if all the power were concentrated on the left. Either way, too much power in one camp with too few checks and balances is a dangerous thing.

3.11.04

11:49 PM

Sergei Zholtok dies suddenly

NHL center Sergei Zholtok (1972-2004)

Veteran center and former Montreal Canadien Sergei Zholtok collapsed suddenly at the end of a hockey game he was playing in Riga, Latvia today. He died of a cardiac arryhtmia.

Zholtok had 111 goals and 147 assists in his 588-game NHL career. He played two and a half seasons for the Habs, from 1998 to midway through 2000 before being traded to Edmonton, and then later to Minnesota and finally the Predators, the last NHL team he played with before the lockout.

He was only 31. That's so incredibly sad.

11:19 PM

The Jewish vote

Despite the conspiracy theorists' claims, the Jewish vote is rarely an election factor, and certainly wasn't this time. Concentrated in locked up states like New York, and not enough to do the job in swing states like Florida, who Jews were voting for wasn't a top story for most media networks who were too busy covering the story-that-wasn't-in-Ohio to notice.

But the big question going into this election was, would they or wouldn't they?

The Jewish vote has been heavily Democratic since time immortal. But in light of 9/11, the war on terror, the situation in Israel and the alignment of the far left with Israel's enemies, would some lifelong Jewish Democrats shift their allegiance to Bush? Would committed Democrats react like Meryl and Lynn and vote for Bush because of international issues? Or would they act more like Allison, putting these issues aside to vote for the candidate who they still feel is best on domestic issues?

Ha'aretz is reporting that Bush picked up 22% of the Jewish vote this election. That's up 3 percentage points from the 19% he got in 2000. So it seems that there were at least some Jewish voters who switched allegiances.

On the other hand, that's still 78% of Jewish voters casting their ballots for Kerry. And the "why" isn't exactly a mystery:

The voting broke down similarly for Jews as it did for Christians, with the more secular voting for Kerry and the ultra-Orthodox religious allying more closely with Bush:

That may be so, but it's telling that the division line in the sand seems to be religious versus secular, not one religion versus another. (The Muslim vote, of course, is an exception. An estimated 93% of Muslims voted for Kerry.)

At any rate, the big story here hasn't materialized the way some people thought it might. The Jewish population did not become conservative overnight, abandoning decades of liberal values in order to vote for a president whose support for Israel is - at least in part - due to his evangelical Christian beliefs. Considering that there was no Joseph Lieberman on the Democratic ticket this time around, getting only 3% less of the Jewish vote than four years ago can hardly be called a defeat for Kerry.

7:18 PM

And now back to our regularly-scheduled programming...

Yes, believe it or not, there is other news besides the US election. Starting with the fact that nobody can figure out what's wrong with Arafat. I've heard discounted diagnoses ranging from stomach cancer to leukemia to AIDS. If you ask me, what's wrong with him is a complete, utter lack of a conscience, coupled with a victim mentality that tells him that the best way to get world sympathy right now is to get sick. It seems to be working like a charm.

The NHLPA met again yesterday, supposedly to discuss "strategy" but in reality to browbeat diseenting members into submission (perhaps by tattooing "no salary cap" into their skulls... for any players who might have been confused on that point).

And a suggestion for the SAQ workers planning to strike: consider as an alternative... a drink-in.

7:12 PM

It's 7:15pm and finally Blogger is back up and running.

I could lament the fact that I missed my chance to blog the day after the US election... but I won't. First of all, there's nothing to say that hasn't already been said. And second of all, I was too busy at work to blog.

Besides, according to CBS MarketWatch, nobody's reading blogs anyway. Well, that's certainly true in my case...

4:15 PM

Four more years of George W. Bush.

My hope is that with Kerry's concession, the healing process can begin. Sounds like a cliché, doesn't it? Besides, it has about as much chance of happening as Michael Moore voting for Bush.

Kerry should have conceded hours earlier, but at least he didn't drag this out for weeks. Now, love him or hate him, Americans at least know that Bush is their president.

8:58 AM

It ain't over till it's over (except when it's over):

As I predicted, it looks like a fairly convincing victory for Bush.

But many of the networks are still labelling it "too close to call", pointing to the slim 140,000-vote margin in Ohio for Bush that, if erradicated, could theoretically swing the election to Kerry.

Frankly, I think Ohio is still the big story because the major media networks want it to be the big story. That's where they sent all their reporters, so that's where they're expecting the story. Plenty of other states have even slimmer margins and have been declared for one candidate or the other.

Bush won the popular vote convincingly this time, unlike four years ago. And he's leading in the three states that the networks have yet to call, including the all-crucial Ohio. Very soon, Kerry's going to come under a lot of pressure to concede. This isn't Florida in 2000, no matter how much people were expecting it to be. This is a solid victory and Kerry should be gracious enough to admit it.

The Bush victory was pretty expected, and I don't have much to say about it that a million other bloggers haven't already said. Personally, I think the more telling stories were some of the direct ballot questions, particularly the issue of gay marriage. 11 states have banned gay marriage by passing constitutional amendments to disallow it. This is a serious step back for human rights in the United States, and it's extremely sad that so many people have turned out in droves to deny even the possibility of granting rights to a minority that are already enjoyed by the majority.

I could say much more about this election, but I'm posting manually since blogger seems to be down (perhaps overloaded with election blogging?) so I'll leave it at that... for now. More to come.

1.11.04

1:23 PM

But predictions, on the other hand...

I don't have any money riding on this and I'm not afraid to look foolish if I'm wrong. A prediction is different from an endorsement... it's about what I think will happen, not what I think ought to happen.

For what it's worth, here's my US election prediction: A narrow win for Bush, but not so narrow that it takes a month in the courts to sort out.

Why? Simply beacuse all these neck-and-neck polls for months have shown Bush slightly ahead. Kerry has never been leading at any point in this campaign.

I think that most Americans - whether fairly or unfairly - feel that Bush understands that there's a war going on better than Kerry understands this. Implicitly they trust Bush over Kerry on security. And tomorrow at the polls, I think they'll give Dubya four more years.

But hey, I could be wrong.

11:19 AM

The question of endorsements

I've long been uncomfortable with the practice of major newspapers and media outlets "endorsing" a candidate or party in an election.

I'm not so naive as to think that the media is truly objective, but I do believe it ought to at least strive for objectivity. A newspaper ought to report the news, not be a propaganda vehicle for a given party or candidate. Endorsements directly negate any semblance of objectivity.

This US election, we've seen bloggers - large and small alike - boarding the endorsement train. Damian Penny is endorsing Bush. Andrew Sullivan has endorsed Kerry. Some blogs, like LGF for Bush and Daily Kos for Kerry, have become de facto campaign tools.

In a way, I'm much more comfortable with blogger endorsements than with media endorsements... because blogging is all about relating one's personal opinion. People read bloggers for a certain viewpoint or perspective, not for objectivity. A blogger offering an endorsement is akin to offering his or her opinion, which, let's face it, is the raison d'être of blogging.

But I'm not about to be presumptuous enough to offer an endorsement here. Why? Several reasons:

First of all, my readership — all 9 of you — doesn't really care what I think about the election, and even if you did, most of you are Canadian and can't vote in it anyway. "Endorsement" differs from "opinion" in the grandioseness of the words. An opinion is just that — a mere opinion. An endorsement, on the other hand, implies a certain importance. And I don't harbour any delusions of importance, nor do I really believe that anyone would — or should — be influenced by my opinion.
Secondly, I'm not American either. And again, while I can have my opinions, the issues I'd be concerned about as a Canadian are not the same issues as American citizens have to weigh in this election.
And finally, because I don't think that either Bush or Kerry is worthy of endorsing in this election. I was "undecided" for a long time and now I'm in the "I don't care, just pick a leader" camp. Of course, this is an easy cop-out, given that I'm Canadian. If I were American I'd probably have to weigh the issues and finally hold my nose and vote for one or the other, because I firmly believe that it's extremely important for every citizen to vote, and I wouldn't be able to justify not voting. But I don't have to make a decision, so I won't.

It's a cop-out, perhaps, but I refuse to believe that the issues are as black-and-white as the Democratic and Republican campaigns are trying to make them out to be.

For example, the Republicans claim Kerry's unfit for leadership because he flip-flops on issues. But I think that a good leader should be willing to make situational decisions, and to change a decision based on input or new information. Maybe Kerry's more nuanced style isn't weakness but openness. I also think that Kerry's not foolish enough to truly compromise American security or to pull troops out of Iraq prematurely. Despite what some people claim, he knows that the US created the situation in Iraq, and that the US can't just leave without solving it.

Similarly, I don't think that the innuendo-based attacks on Bush are fair to him. The widespread panic about reinstating the draft is nothing more than a scare-tactic designed to turn voters away from Bush. And instead of banding together against terrorism, Democrats are blaming the Bush administration for failing to correctly interpret warning signs before 9/11 and failing to prevent the attacks. The 9/11 commission uncovered some glaring mistakes, to be certain... but if Al Gore were President, would he really have done any better? Remember, this was so far off anyone's radar screen before 9/11 that anyone who warned about it incessantly would be accused of fear-mongering.

I'm equally torn on domestic issues. Bush has created a huge deficit and giant economic woes... but was that entirely his fault? The economy was on the verge of recession when Clinton handed him the reins, and between the tech stock crash and 9/11, economic problems were a near-certainty. Nor do I truly believe Kerry will end NAFTA, as many Canadians fear. But economy-wise, it's hard to tell who would be better. Kerry seems disturbingly like a protectionist, while Bush has implemented tariffs. The rhetoric about "tax cuts for the wealthy" is a Kerry campaign favourite, as is the notion that Bush is subsidizing the outsourcing of American jobs, but I doubt Kerry would be able to do much about either.

The Bush team has crawled steadily to the right, pandering to interest groups who believe that guns are good, abortion and gay marriage is bad, and decisions should be made based on Christian faith. This, too, is a bit of an oversimplification; in four years in office, Bush hasn't directly done much to threaten the separation of church and state. But I'd trust Kerry's judgeship appointments over Bush's, in terms of setting out a future for the country. The fact that the Republicans would use a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage as a campaign tack, even though they know it would never pass, says a lot about the types of divisions they're aiming to create in American society.

Kerry, for his part, is more solid on these issues but his "internationalist" policies concern me. Though AIPAC's record on Kerry shows him to be a good friend to Israel, the amount of faith he has in the United Nations concerns me. Similarly, many American allies are very concerned about Kerry because they think he'll try to get them on board on issues that they have no intention of supporting. For them, it's easier with Bush, because at least he won't ask so they won't have to refuse.

Nothing's as simple as thirty-second campaign spots make it out to be. But ultimately, the right to vote is what's important. My only hope for this election is that a leader is chosen quickly by the people, not by the courts.

8:51 AM

Lessons from the war

Michael Oren, author of what many consider to be the definitive history of the Six-Days' War, has an article in last Wednesday's National Post about the latest ongoing war between the Israelis and the Palestinians that's absolutely required reading (link requires subscription):

Powerful words and food for thought, especially in the wake of this morning's suicide bombing in Tel Aviv that has claimed three more innocent lives.

HOME