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 >>

 
12:20 PM
And you'll pay for it how, exactly?

In his first major campaign promise since swearing to once again fight to restrict the rights of gays to get hitched, Stephen Harper vowed to slash the GST from 7% to 5% if the Tories are elected.

This is exactly the sort of thing I'd like to see from the Conservative party. But if you want voters to buy in, you need to convince them you've thought it through and you can afford the tax cut while still maintaining a balanced budget. And somehow, comments like this one aren't doing much to reassure me that Harper understands the intricacies of economic policy:

"I've never supported the GST myself. I believe all taxes are bad. Lower taxes are good," Harper said.

Wow, that statement is nearly Bush-like in its oversimplification! (Does that mean that Harper is promising us Bush-like deficits, too?)

There are lots of places where the government could cut useless spending to afford a tax cut. I'd like to see Harper suggest some of them. Otherwise, this is nothing but an empty campaign promise and I remain unconvinced.

|

 
11:21 PM
Pick the least insulting adjective

Canadians will be faced with a wonderful choice on January 23rd at the polls.

We've got the NDP, who are a bunch of commie rat bastards.
We've got the Conservatives, who are a bunch of fascists.
We've got the Bloc Quebecois, who are a bunch of separatists.
And then we've got the Liberals, who are a bunch of crooks.

Pick the adjective that you find the least insulting and cast your ballot. May the least bad insult win.

|

 
8:47 PM
Wind and umbrellas

Not a match made in heaven.

|

 
8:39 PM
The Twilight Zone

Now, don't get me wrong, I like Damian Penny's blog an awful lot. I even agree with most of the things he writes. But some of his readers and commentators... well, that's another story altogether. Case in point: the delusion-fest going on right now about how Harper and the Conservatives are going to win the election by focusing endlessly on the same two issues they've spent the last couple of years talking about.

The post starts by linking to a very sensible column in the Ottawa Citizen about what Harper needs to do if he wants to improve his chances in this election:

For the past couple of years, the party has focused on highlighting Liberal corruption and opposing same-sex marriage. This strategy has created three problems, all of which remain unresolved and continue to plague Mr. Harper.

One, Canadians know little about what he actually stands for: they only know what he is against. Two, the Liberals and the media defined the Tory leader before he could do so himself, which explains his personal unpopularity and the Tories' inability to break 30 per cent in polls. And three, the party has not been able to attract new support because it has failed to reach out to new constituencies. Most people who oppose same-sex marriage are already voting Tory. The party has to move beyond that base.

Then, on the news that Harper is doing precisely the opposite, we get comments like these:

It's an appeal to the social conservative vote, all right, but that's not just the stereotypical Christian right. It's also a way to appeal to new immigrants and the various ethnic communities, who need assurance that the Tories won't ram a secular social change down their throats.

Actually, the idea that the Tories would pick up votes from immigrant communities by bashing gay marriage proved to be a massive failure in the last election. Why Harper keeps harping on it (no pun intended) is a mystery probably best explained by lack of any other coherent policies.

Then there's this gem:

This IS a brilliant idea! Here's how it works:

By bringing up SSM and causing the Liberals to use their 'boogeyman' tactics, Stephen Harper has deprived the Liberals of their most powerful weapon.

In this phase of the campaign, the parties should be keeping their most powerful arguments for the final stage. By forcing the Liberals to respond now, their most dangerous argument is going to be exhausted before the end of the campaign, and the Liberal message will appear repetitive.

This is a risk, and will cause a bump in the polls for the Liberals, but it is a brilliant strategy which will ultimately help make a Conservative win happen.

Never doubt Stephen Harper's intelligence.

Oh, that's a great strategy there. Lead off the election campaign by talking constantly about the thing you want voters to forget??? Sounds like the other person whose intelligence I need to doubt is the author of this comment.

The Conservatives don't have a chance in hell. But the delusion-fest continues. Read if you dare.

|

 
7:35 PM
No More Confidence

The Liberal government is dead.

Date of the election of the next (Liberal) governemnt: January 23. Mark your calendars for the date of the big non-event.

Zzzzzzzzz.

|

 
2:44 PM
Israeli election roundup

I know we're heading into yet another election campaign in Canada... but, as all our elections are, it's sure to be a real snoozer. So instead, let's talk about the more interesting election campaign - Israel's.

Imshin is optimistic, sort of:

There is something uplifting about what has been happening here in recent days. For years everyone has been moaning that we have no leaders. Suddenly we do. Two of them, up against each other.

Sharon and Peretz are both nasty bastards, both sly, corrupt, cynical politicians. Is Peretz any nastier than Sharon? I doubt it. Love them or hate them, the thing is that both are people who get things done, make things happen. Who would have believed the Gaza disengagement would actually happen? You had to be here to realize how absolutely incredible that was. And who would have believed anyone would be able to resurrect the Histadrut? For instance.

Here's Allison on Shimon Peres:

We need a national referendum on whether it's time for him to retire.

Here's Harry's reaction on what Sharon's new party may mean for Shinui:

Oh, and Shinui is DONE. The creation of a centrist party without the anti-religious banter and sans a cantankerous leader is the death knell for the secular party.

That's true, though I still contend that Shinui has been done ever since the night after the last election, when Yasser Arafat openly praised Tommy Lapid.

Finally, we have Isreality giving the ultimate reality check:

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

The outcome of this spring's elections will undoubtedly result in another limping coalition of partners tugging each other apart at the seams, with the same old leaders making the same old back room deals.

The only aspect to look forward to actually, is the campaign commercials for the fringe parties like the taxi drivers' party, the Green Leaf party for legalizing pot, and the sentimental favorite - the battered husbands' party. Now that's entertainment.

Fringe parties are probably the only things that will save the Canadian election from mind-numbing dullness as well. At least we have that in common.

|

 
10:39 AM
Melting

The early snow was just a fake-out, I guess. Everything's melting today as the temperature goes up to 10 degrees. Watch your step out there - it's slippery.

|

 
10:25 AM
U2 Mania

U2 fever has hit Montreal. Somehow they've managed to fit two shows - one Saturday night, a second tonight - in between blasting Paul Martin on foreign aid.

Bono, as I've said before, we want your views on politics just as much as we want Paul Martin donning a leather jacket and belting out "Where The Streets Have No Name". Which is to say, not at all. Not that I expect U2 to get out of politics anytime soon.

On the radio this morning, one of the leaders of a local West Island charity phoned in and mentioned having run into Bono at Hurley's Pub on Saturday night, and apparently having chatted with him about domestic versus foreign aid. I don't know how much that will change government policy, but it's sure great advertising for Hurley's.

|

 
11:41 PM
Terrorists in suits and ties

That's what Gil Troy calls them in an op-ed piece in today's Gazette(link requires subscription):

What happens when a terrorist organization decides to enter the political arena? Does it automatically become legitimate?

[ . . . ]

The truth is that terrorists by definition have entered the political arena from the start because terrorism is violence with a political agenda. Without the political context, bombing, kidnapping, and shooting are simply crimes. Terrorism, like war, is politics by other means, an extension of politics when negotiation or discussion break down - or never existed.

The questions also are misleading because we have discovered that the world's commitment to morality and justice is relative: It varies depending on the players involved. Especially when it comes to the Middle East, the world's moral clarity gets muddy, the moral compass goes haywire.

[ . . . ]

We cannot be fooled by [Hizbollah] or by Hamas. Terrorists in suits and ties remain cold-blooded killers.

Terrorist organizations have a history of trying to "go legit" while still maintaining their original violent purposes. But Gil Troy's argument cuts both ways: if a terrorist in a suit and tie is just a terorrist, then how is a democratically-elected terrorist preferable to dictatorship? If a society gets the leadership it deserves, then shouldn't we let democracy unfold?

That doesn't mean, of course, that any other government - Israel included - should be forced to deal with them.

What about what's happening in Egypt, where the first hints of democracy have yielded a corrupt election where there are no clear "good guys", because the people being prevented from voting and running were associated with the ultra-fanatic Muslim Brotherhood? What is the preferable outcome - a fair and impartial election of terrorists, or an "election" of so-called moderates thanks to rigging and intimidation? As it happened, we had a rigged election of terrorists, so it's almost the worst of both worlds. But how does that fit in with the theory that we ought to push for democratic reforms in the Middle East?

One thing is for certain: as long the world continues to reward terrorists by giving them legitimacy in political arenas, terrorism will continue to thrive.

|