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 PM
It's too early for the s-word!

It's a beautiful sunny crisp fall day here in Montreal, which makes this all the more surreal:

Buffalo lay all but paralyzed Friday after a record-breaking early snowstorm whited-out the brilliant colors of fall, buried pumpkins and apples and caught this city world-famous for its wintry weather flat-flooted. At least three deaths were blamed on the storm.

The heavy, wet snow snapped tree limbs all over western New York, leaving some 350,000 homes and businesses without power.

A state of emergency was in effect across the region, banning all nonessential travel. Branches and power lines lay draped across cars and houses, and normally busy downtown streets were still, blanketed by up to two feet of snow.

It's really rare to get any snow at all in October, and when it happens, it hardly ever does more than dust the ground before melting quickly away. And that's Montreal I'm talking about; for Buffalo, it's even weirder. For a massive snowstorm of this scale to hit Buffalo at any time of winter is pretty extraordinary, but in mid-October?

I blame Friday the 13th. Hey, it's as good an explanation as any.

|

 
9:03 AM
Whaddaya mean, anti-Israel?

Liberal leadership candidates are falling all over each other to deny Harper's accusation that they're anti-Israel:

Bob Rae, Ignatieff's chief rival, likened Harper's comment to being accused of a hate crime, while Gerard Kennedy said Harper had surrendered his ability to act as prime minister for partisan purposes.

"I think that the prime minister's comments were shameful," Rae said. "This goes beyond the usual give-and-take of partisan life. It's an appalling statement."

He noted his own wife and children are Jewish and he's travelled often to the Middle East.

Yesterday, Ignatieff insisted he remains a supporter of Israel.

"It is disgraceful that the prime minister is playing crass politics with the issue of the Middle East," he said.

"The Liberal Party has always been a friend of Israel, and I will always stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Israel and the Canadian Jewish community to defend

Israel's right to respond when it is attacked by terrorists or when its neighbours wrongfully deny its right to exist."

Kennedy echoed the concerns. "I think he (Harper) has given up his sworn responsibilities as prime minister to play for partisan advantage, and I think it is highly unfortunate," he said.

Kennedy described himself as "resolutely a friend of Israel" but also "a friend of Lebanon."

Stephane Dion said: "I feel insulted by my prime minister."

Sure, the Libs are seeing this as a way to try to attack Harper. But personally, I find it refreshing that, regardless of their actual individual positions, all the Liberal candidates seem to feel that it's politically expendiant to come across as being supporters of Israel. In a time when being anti-Israel is more and more "in", it's nice to see that the potential next leaders of our country still recognize that it's "out". In other words, it's a relief to see that being perceived as being "anti-Israel" in this country is still bad PR.

Even as they attack Harper for being too pro-Israel and try to spin this into a political point for the Liberals, the leadership candidates seem to understand that they have to prove - or at least claim - to be friends of Israel in order to win the race. Cynical as this may be, it could be a lot worse; they could be trying to prove that they're the most anti-Israel. (Of course, we're talking about the Liberals here, not the NDP...)

|

 
11:15 PM
Google really will own the world soon

The latest Google takeover: YouTube.

At least it wasn't Yahoo, which means that the content on YouTube will probably stay relatively open and free of pointless Yahooisms. (I don't use Facebook personally, but I hope for the sake of those who do that the rumours aren't true and that Yahoo keeps its paws off).

Meanwhile, YouTube owners Chad Hurley and Steven Chen are laughing all the way to the bank.

|

 
11:09 PM
Meanwhile in Russia

Looks like the murder of journalist Anna Politkovskaya is finally opening the eyes of the world to what's been going on in Russia for quite some time:

Unnatural death occurs with alarming regularity here, despite the carefully cultivated impression that President Vladimir V. Putin has presided over an era of stability, economic progress and resurgent national pride. Some say it occurs because of it.

“This state killed Anna Politkovskaya,” Grigory A. Yavlinsky, a once-prominent democratic leader, declared bluntly as the mourners filed out into a cold, gray afternoon.

Russia is unquestionably a dangerous place for journalists — less so than only Iraq and Algeria, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. Thirteen of them have been killed since Mr. Putin came to power in 2000, a little more than two a year on average.

It's not only journalists who are in danger when they speak out. Vladimir Putin hasn't been particularly tolerant of any kind of political dissent. Anyone who speaks out, threatens him, or becomes too powerful has a way of mysteriously disappearing, as Putin works to steadily and quietly curtail many of the post-Soviet freedoms that have been built in Russia.

When my sister was studying Russian politics in university, she used to rant about the situation, lamenting the blind eye that the West has been turning to Russia - the gradual erosion of human rights, the trouncing that the political system has been taking, the efforts of Putin to cling to power. Not too many people noticed, though. It appears that Politkovskaya's murder was the catalyst needed to open our eyes, and we will need to be much warier from here on out.

|

 
10:53 PM
Madonna saves the children

Seems everyone's jumping on the adopt-a-baby-from-a-poor-country celebrity bandwagon these days. The latest participant in this media circus is Madonna, who seems to have adopted a Malawian boy along with her husband, Guy Ritchie, while on a tour for her various charity projects.

I'm sure that, mixed in somewhere with her publicity-seeking media hogging behaviour, Madonna is trying to do some good in Africa, even if accidentally. But my sense is that Madonna knows about as much about poverty in Malawi as she does about the Kabbalah. In other words, not a whole lot. At least Angelina Jolie is sincerely involved in child poverty and refugee causes, and does a lot of work under the radar. On the other hand, Madonna seems to be just looking for the next new fad to fill whatever emptiness she has in her life. I feel bad for her kids - all of them.

If you want an interesting and informative perspective about Malawi from someone who's actually spent some real time there, outside the presence of TV cameras, read this.

|

 
10:45 PM
The new Iranian bloggers

Dissidents or secularist bloggers are still being gagged in Iran... but the clerics are blogging up a storm.

This started off as merely an amusing tidbit but I wonder what's in store. The blogosphere is one of the last arenas of freedom of speech, and it seems that Iran's hardline religious leaders have chosen it as their next battleground. So far they've only been concentrating on Iran, but the global nature of the Internet makes me wonder how far off we are from seeing attempts by Islamists to control worldwide blogging content. It's something every blogger ought to be keeping a close watch on.

|

 
10:27 PM
About the North Korean nukes

So much for recent promises... The "so ronery" Dear Leader of Death Camps now officially has nuclear weapons... and it's about the scariest situation imaginable.

Except that we already pretty much all knew about them. And there wasn't really anything anyone could do before, so what will really change here? The United Nations? Is anyone really delusional enough to think that this organization which is currently unable to do anything about the mass murder still ongoing in Sudan can do anything about North Korea? It's not as though a UN threat of sanctions would be too scary to a country already suffering mass starvation. Or that anyone really believes anyone - US or otherwise - would use a military option. In short, a nuclear North Korea is pretty much a fait accompli, because the rest of the world has no options.

Damian thinks the only option for North Korea has to come from within:

Ultimately, the only ways Kim will be removed from power are a potentially catastrophic outside invasion, or an uprising from within. The former is a non-starter; the latter could work. From here on out, we should redouble our efforts to support those brave North Koreans who oppose their government, and to get news and information to the most hermetically sealed society on earth.

Unfortunately, I have to disagree with Damian on this one, for a few reasons:

1) North Korea has no real viable, organized opposition of any form; it's the world's least free and most oppressive regime, where opposition is systematically stamped out in its infancy.

2) North Korea is also desperately poor, has no real economy, no rule of law, no independent institutions... in short, it's much, much worse than even Iraq. We mustn't assume that the removal of Kim Jong-Il would liberate a country just waiting for the opportunity to instill a flourishing democracy. There is no indication that the removal of the dictatorship would leave anything but total chaos and anarchy. And a situation where chaotic anarchy meets nuclear weapons might be the only thing scarier than the current situation. At least we KNOW which crazy guy has his finger on the button now. What will happen when it's a free-for-all?

The question we should be asking is, why now? Granted, Kim Jong-Il is crazy, but by some accounts he's also crazy like a fox. This test was an in-your-face to the West, an in-your-face to the United Nations, and an in-your-face to Bush. And its timing was no coincidence. Given the geopolitical factors in the rest of the world, namely the mess in Iraq and Iran's ongoing game of nuclear chicken with the U.N., Kim Jong-Il probably decided the time was ripe to flex his muscle a little bit.

But does this mean we're on the verge of nuclear disaster? That depends on your perspective. The worry about Iran going nuclear is that Ahmadinejad might be crazy enough to actually not care about the consequences of launching a nuclear strike, so deep is his hatred for Israel and the West. Is the same true of Kim Jong-Il? Or is North Korea just trying to prove a point?

These are questions that were always hard to answer about nuclear weapons, but if we think this is the worst of it, then we're kidding ourselves. To date, nuclear weapons have only ever been in the hands of countries, ranging from democracies to despotic dictatorships with crazy leaders, but all countries nonetheless. It's only a matter of time until a terrorist group or rogue organization gets ahold of nuclear weapons. What then? What happens when there are no diplomatic options to even attempt?

We'd better start thinking about it, and soon, because if you think that this week is scary, I fear we ain't seen nothing yet.

My solution? Send in our ultimate weapons: Trey Parker and Matt Stone.

|