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 >>

20.1.06

11:01 AM

Falling

Just when you think you've hit rock bottom, there's always further to fall.

19.1.06

11:55 AM

Galloway's idea of a "good cause"

British MP and general wackjob George Galloway has come under fire from Israel for promising to donate any money he wins from his participation on the reality show "Big Brother" to a terrorist front organization:

Interpal was also banned by Israel in 1997.

Surprised? Nah, not really. Galloway's true colours have been clear for a long time, and this is far from the most shocking thing he has done. Then again, raising money for terrorists who blow up innocent Israelis is probably considered a good thing in Galloway's twisted mind.

(Hat tip: Tom).

9:03 AM

And again

A suicide bombing in Tel Aviv, near the central bus station, has so far injured at least 10 people.

What is there to say that hasn't already been said thousands of times already?

Update: The latest figures say 22 people were wounded. Ha'aretz is reporting that the Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility, but suggests that it's a bit murky and that the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade (in other words, Fatah) may be behind the attack.

What really irks me is that media reports call this the "first bombing in a year". Not true. It's the first suicide bombing (though not the first attack) of the 2006 calendar year. But it's been barely five weeks since a terrorist bomber struck in Netanya on December 5th, murdering five Israelis.

Say it with me now: What truce?

18.1.06

8:34 PM

And for the wingnuts...

Bruce over at Autonomous Source has compiled an amusing list of the fringe parties running in the election (via Damian Penny).

I still believe that all of these parties, no matter how small, ought to be permitted to participate in the debates. It would keep things interesting, anyhow.

2:38 PM

What truce?

3 more rockets were fired by Palestinian terrorists at Israel from the Gaza Strip, in a "what else is new"? kind of story:

But, of course, the international media absolutely insists that there's a truce.

What was that quote again? "None are so blind as those who will not see"?

2:35 PM

Martin's gaffe

With friends like these, who needs enemies?

Hargrove's endorsement of the Liberals is the kind of thing that would make me less inclined to vote for them, not more - even without his suggestion that Quebeckers vote Bloc. Martin's campaign is looking increasingly desperate.

10:37 AM

Harper's gaffe

With a lead in the polls less than a week before the election, Stephen Harper can't afford any missteps. And yet yesterday's message, intentionally or unintentionally, seems to have been that he's not scary.

Which, of course, just leads voters to focus on the topic of his potential scariness.

Didn't anyone ever tell him that the surest way to get people to think something of you is to make a point of denying it?

Sure enough, today's polls show a stagnation in the Tory lead. And whatever Harper thinks, it ain't over till the fat lady starts warbling. As I've said all along, don't count out the Liberals just yet.

17.1.06

11:42 PM

Colbert mocks Liberal attack ad

Stephen Colbert mock-saluted Paul Martin for "taking negative campaign ads to the next level", based on the Liberal ad attacking Harper for being best friends with Bush.

Hey Paul: when even the American comedians are mocking your ads, they have to be really awful.

Then again, I suppose we should cut the Liberals some slack for how bad their campaign advertisements have been this time around. After all, their ad agencies all went and got themselves indicted in the sponsorship scandal.

(By the way, Colbert also had Andrew Sullivan on the show as his guest tonight. True to tongue-in-cheek form, his first question was "what is a blog?")

11:23 PM

And in other news...

It's freezing rain again. Ugh. January so far has sucked for skiing, and indications for this weekend are not good. Why can't we have a good old-fashioned snowstorm for a change?

11:22 PM

Smart. Real smart.

Guy Caruso, the head of the U.S. EIA says that the world can't afford to lose Iran's oil if sanctions were imposed by the U.N.

Does that mean he feels that the world can afford a nuclear attack by Iran on its enemies. How would that affect the delicate world economy, Mr. Caruso?

10:53 PM

MPs against gay marriage

Curious about your local candidate's stance on the issue? Check out this site, highlighted today in the Globe and Mail for "endorsing" candidates who are strongly opposed to gay marriage and who - presumably - would vote to overturn it, given the opportunity.

Lists like this one creep up from time to time. When they have a witch-hunt quality to them (in other words, when a group opposed to something publishes a list of MPs who support it, or vice-versa, in order to attack them), they make me very, very uncomfortable. For instance, the CIC's infamous grading of federal MPs is merely a list giving high scores to anti-Israel MPs and attacking any Jewish or pro-Israel MPs. (For those who are interested, the CJC has published an issues guide that contains an overview of key issues for the Jewish community and a list of questions to put to local candidates, but doesn't actually endorse any candidate or party).

Attacking MPs is one thing. Promoting them, however, is another. When candidates or MPs declare themselves to be in favour or opposed to something, then I don't have a problem with that.

But this anti-gay marriage site is sort of a grey area: the coalition is endorsing certain candidates, but it's hard to tell whether the candidates have given their endorsement to the coalition. Furthermore, many of us will view the site as a sort of "who not to vote for" guide - precisely the opposite intention of its creators. Nonetheless, if you're concerned about equal rights for all Canadian citizens, I suppose it's worth a look.

7:11 PM

Undecided?

If you still can't figure out who to vote for, but you want to vote for one of the four major parties, check out this quiz. It claims to be able to tell you who to vote for based on 12 simple policy and issue questions.

Apparently, according to the quiz, I should vote Liberal. How convenient. But I'm disclaiming any responsibility for your results.

(Hat tip: Elena).

4:19 PM

Bono to hang up his microphone?

U2 says they might retire after their current tour. I guess that would give Bono more time to fight poverty in Africa, and the rest of the guys more time to party and spend their millions.

Say it ain't so! I'm starting to seriously regret skipping seeing the band on this tour in favour of Bon Jovi. Let's hope it's a false alarm, because I'd hate to think I missed my last chance to see U2 perform.

4:17 PM

Only the CBC could have come up with this headline:

Martin attacks Layton for not attacking Harper.

Catch that? And in related news, Duceppe attacks Harper for not attacking Layton for Martin's attack on him.

I'm starting to understand American politics better, where the word "attack" is usually followed by something like "Iraq".

2:53 PM

You know your party's in trouble when...

An NHL star is suing your MP:

Doan is heading to Turin as part of the Canadian Olympic team that will hopefully bring home the gold. Coderre, meanwhile, is fighting to keep his seat in a much closer race in his home riding than last time. Which of these two men would you rather be right now?

Thought so.

2:53 PM

Around the blogosphere

Lisa recently moved to her new blog home. She's got photos of her daily life after Ariel Sharon's stroke. Sometimes pictures really do say a thousand words.

Meryl has numbers proving conclusively that the so-called "truce" was a myth all along. She's been saying that since it started. Nobody's been listening. I'm betting not too many people will now. Read her post anyway.

Closer to home, there's no shortage of election coverage and commentary. But here's something you don't see every day: David Janes apparently wants to be Prime Minister. And he's laying out his platform, piece by piece. I can't say I agree with everything he says, but at least he's refreshingly honest. Bloggers for PM!

Pauline cast her ballot in advance polling, for the eminently logical reason that Montreal weather is unpredictable at this time of year. If I find myself unable to vote on Monday because of an ice storm, Pauline, I give you permission to say "I told you so".

1:12 PM

Why I'm not jumping on the blue bandwagon

In a democracy, I have an absolute right not to discuss how I intend to vote with anyone. However, I'm choosing to waive that right, because politics is such an important topic on this blog, to discuss why, despite the corruption, scandals and aggravation, unlike so many Canadians, I won't be switching my vote from Liberal to Tory this time around. This is the first time I've ever felt the need to explain my vote, and maybe that makes the vote all that much more important.

So why vote Liberal, you may ask?

Is it because I think the Liberals have done such a great job? Not really.

Is it because I buy into the scare tactics about Stephen Harper being George W. Bush reincarnated, prepared to turn us into a far right-wing theocracy? No, I find those ads amusing at best and ridiculously disastrous for the Liberals at worst.

Is it because I think that the culture of corruption that has set in amongst the Liberals is worth rewarding? Definately not.

Is it because I'm voting strategically, in a riding where a Liberal vote would prevent a Bloc or NDP candidate from getting elected? Nope, my riding has been solidly Liberal since 1968 and even the sponsorship scandal won't be changing that anytime soon. I could safely lodge a protest vote with little impact.

Is it because Martin convinced me in the debates? Not at all; in fact, he's probably one of the worst debators I've ever seen, and he got his butt kicked all the way to Ellesmere Island and back.

Is it because I agree with the majority of the Liberal policies and platform issues? Not even.

Is it because I believe that a Liberal victory represents the best chance to keep Quebec in Canada and to fight sovereignty? On the contrary, I think it will probably hurt a great deal.

So, you're probably asking yourself, why on earth would I vote for this party?

Good question.

The answer is simple: Despite all the scandals, despite all the corruption, despite the promises I don't believe and the policies I don't agree with, the Liberal party still is the "best of the worst" in my mind. On the major things the government has done lately, I've been much closer to the Liberal point of view than to the Tory one.

Some examples:

The economy: Whatever else he's done, Martin has balanced the budget and improved economic conditions. He did his best to stand up to people like Jack Layton against spending we can't afford. He even stood up to Bono - and hey, if you can say no to Bono, you can say no to anyone. The Canadian dollar is up, unemployment is down, and while the economy is still plagued with problems, I simply don't believe that Harper is better equipped to solve them than Martin is. The Tory promises to reduce the GST may play well in the media, but in practice there are plenty of other places worth cutting first.
Social issues: Gay marriage is probably the most prominent example lately. As I've stated many times on this blog before, every Canadian - gay or straight - ought to recognize this as an issue of fundamental human rights. Any of us who belong to any kind of minority should understand that if you can have a majority-rules decision against one minority, the same logic could be used against any of us. Martin and the Liberals were on the right side of this one. Harper and the Tories were on the wrong side. And while I don't really believe Harper will reverse it, nor do I agree with electing a party that has dedicated so much time, energy and resources to fighting it. I think the Liberals took a courageous position on this one and I respect them for it (if for little else).
Voting for the candidate, not the party: Cop-out? Perhaps. But I like Marlene Jennings, the incumbant Liberal MP in my riding, well enough. Her voting record is often in step with what I believe (though not always), and she has been especially strong in defending Israel and in working to strengthen Canada's ties with Israel, which is an issue of importance to me. And I'm comfortable having her represent my riding in Parliament, whether as a member of the government or as a member of the opposition.

So the upshot is, I'm not entirely happy to be voting Liberal and I'm not about to hit the campaign trail for Martin's team. There are plenty of places where I flat-out disagree with the Liberals on policy, and there's no doubt the party is about as corrupt as you can get. But I'm not going blue this time, for those reasons and for the reason that I simply don't believe the Tories have presented enough of a positive platform. They've been stronger in attacking the Liberals, sure, but their policy initiatives haven't won me over.

Okay, bring it on. I'm ready.

11:13 AM

Eating my words?

Mario Dumont is one thing. But I would've never predicted that La Presse would endorse the Tories in a Federal election.

La Presse is one of Montreal's major newspapers and is widely considered the French federalist voice in Montreal (as opposed to Le Devoir, which leans separatist) and it had previously endorsed the Liberals almost automatically. But with the sponsorship scandal tarnishing the Liberal name, there's a feeling now that the Tories may actually make some inroads. I've been saying it won't happen for a long time, and if it does I may have to admit I was wrong and eat my words.

Then again, as they say, the only poll that matters is on election day. I'm still not convinced that this surge in polling numbers is going to translate into seats. And there's no way the Liberals will be shut out of Quebec - whatever else happens, the Liberal stronghold seats in English Montreal are safe. As for percentages, since polls are not conducted riding-by-riding, there are as many ways to predict how the distribution will break as there are political opinions in Canada. I still believe that the surge in polling for the Conservatives in Quebec will translate into a lot of second-place showings in ridings where the Bloc wins, as opposed to seats. (The Election Prediction Project has the Tories ahead recently for the first time, but too many seats are too close to call to truly predict the outcome).

Nonetheless, with less than a week to go, Stephen Harper has overcome his toughest challenge: fear of a Tory government. With 55% of Canadians saying they believe a Conservative majority is a good idea, it seems that the Liberal attack campaign backfired on itself. And take a closer look at those numbers: the percentage of people who think a Tory majority would be a good idea is highest in Quebec - even higher than it is in Western Canada. (For the record, I'm not among those 55%, but then, regular readers already knew that).

Ontario, of course, remains the key battleground, and if it turns out that people are all talk and no action on election day, then we will be ushering in another Martin government. If Ontario goes blue, however, Stephen Harper should start preparing for his new job as Prime Minister.

16.1.06

9:55 PM

You know you're Canadian when...

... you couldn't care less about the Golden Globe Awards because you're too engrossed watching the Habs beat the Stars 4-2, despite being outshot 37-15. Jose Theodore deserves all the credit here. Go Habs!

9:25 PM

Dissecting Iran's motives

The Wall Street Journal has an analysis of Iran's provocation of the West with President Ahmadinejad's rhetoric and - more importantly - nuclear ambition. And the conclusions it reaches are disconcerting, to say the least. Among the points it makes are that:

Iran chose now to press the nuclear issue, figuring the U.S. can't do much because of Iraq and the rest of the world couldn't ever do much about it.
The U.N. is powerless to stop Iran from going nuclear, and no Security Council sanctions - even if agreed upon by Russia and China - would be strong enough to get Iran to cave.
U.S. Intelligence estimates that Iran is "very close" to mastering nuclear weapons technology, perhaps as close as a year.
Unlike with Iraq, the world cannot count on Israel to stop Iran from going nuclear, as it has neither the range nor the capacity to prevent disastrous reprisals for an attack. It would likely come down to the U.S. to take military action, if it were to come to that, and at the moment this seems unlikely given the war in Iraq.

All in all, the analysis paints a very bleak picture in which Iran is marching steadily towards acquiring a nuclear bomb that it may have every intention of using to wipe Israel off the map.

If North Korea was the number-one threat to the world not too long ago, Iran has suddenly jumped up a few positions. However, I don't believe we're headed towards World War III tomorrow. There are still steps that can be taken, if the world recognizes the dangers in allowing Teheran to acquire nuclear technology. I only hope that these steps are taken, and that they are effective.

9:11 PM

Since when was this an issue?

I can't help but wonder why, with a week left until the election and with the issue never having been on the table in the first place, abortion rights are suddenly making news.

Whatever my reservations about the Tories, I can't imagine that they would take steps to restrict a woman's right to choose. And although the attack is supposedly coming from an independent source, it's difficult not to read between the lines and attribute this to the Liberal strategy of trying to paint Harper with the U.S. right-wing fanatic brush. Martin might think he's scoring points, but the scare tactics are looking much more like desperation tactics at this point.

9:04 PM

Oprah's new book club pick

Oprah Winfrey has selected Elie Weisel's "Night" as her latest book club pick, catapulting the famous book on the Holocaust onto the bestseller list over a half-cenutry after it was first published.

"Night" was required reading in high school French class (though I seem to remember most of us cheating by picking up the English translation from the library). It's a powerful book and Weisel emerged as one of the key voices of conscience on the Holocaust. There was a time when Weisel's word would have carried more weight than Oprah's.

Then again, with Holocaust-denial on the rise (from the usual suspects and the Left and the Arab world), and with the generation of survivors slowly disappearing, perhaps this was the right time to push the book back into the spotlight.

HOME