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 >>

 
12:03 AM
Head-scratcher

So I came home today and checked my mail, only to find - among the many pieces of junk mail I reguarly receive - a glossy advertisement for a new luxury condo development in the area.

Now, I don't live in a dump or anything, but these ain't fancy digs either. My place is a one-bedroom, with relatively low rent and, I would guess, a fairly low average income for the building.

So what marketing "genius" came up with the bright idea to spam our neighbourhood with ads for condos that probably cost more money than I, or any of my neighbours, will probably see in four lifetimes?

Just asking.

|

 
12:55 PM
The Israeli media reacts

What does the US midterm election result spell for Israel? Here's a brief roundup from the Israeli media:

Ynet calls the Democratic gains "expected" and claims this is good news for Israel:

As to Israel, those who watched the Democratic victory broadcast from Washington, could not mistake the significance of those leading the celebrations; they included the man who led the party campaign in Congress, Rahm Emanuel (formerly Clinton's close aide,) who boasts a plainly Hebrew name and spent some time in the northern Israeli town of Kiryat Shmona, as well as New York Senator Chuck Schumer, also a Jew whose commitment to Israel is beyond any doubt.

In the next Senate, Jews will again comprise one fifth of the Democratic faction, including Maryland Senator Ben Cardin, whose attachment to Zionism is known to all. The Democratic party was always the political home of most American Jews, and it is no wonder its leaders and candidates were quick to disassociate themselves from former President Jimmy Carter's new book, while demonstrating as much as possible that their commitment to Israel was and will remain a solid bipartisan position in both houses of Congress.

And on from the other side of the political spectrum, Jerusalem Post columnist Caroline Glick spells out her pessimistic view of a what a Democratic victory would spell:

It is only by ignoring the reality of the war that it is possible for people to pretend that Israel is the cause of Islamic fascism, or that American Jews and Jewish neoconservatives are the source of the world's misfortunes.

[ . . . ]

A Republican victory will provide an opportunity for a debate over how the war is being run to take place. A Democratic victory will guarantee that such a debate is squelched in favor of finger-pointing against Jews and Israel, and the US itself, for having the nerve to note the dangers and insist upon defending against them.

So which is it? Good for Israel? Bad for Israel? At this point, who knows? A lot will depend on what happens in 2008, who the respective parties nominate, and what shape the debate will take.

|

 
12:07 PM
Virginia senate race

Webb versus Allen is still too close to call.

But never mind those clowns. Personally I think the winner should've been Meryl Yourish.

|

 
10:26 AM
They're at it again

The endless squabbling between the Hasidic Jewish Community and the general population in Outremont/Mile End has a new chapter.

In the past, they've argued about the right to build succahs, to put up an eruv, and even to run a bus service to New York.

The latest issue? The right to work out:

It was an unlikely confrontation in an alley behind the Park Ave. YMCA.

On one side, Renee Lavaillante, sun-loving pilates practitioner; on the other, Abraham Perlmutter, member of the Hasidic congregation of Yetev Lev, who believes those women in tights are corrupting young boys at the synagogue across the street.

The clash between the two came to a head yesterday over the YMCA's new frosted windows, which block out the sun - and the tights.

It's tempting to write this off as just another example of the wider community's intolerance towards the Hasidic population. But in this case, it's actually backwards:

In all the above examples, the community was attempting to curtail the rights of the Hasidim. In this case, the Hasidim are attempting to curtail the rights of the community.

Part of living in a free society means that you're entitled to your own beliefs, standards and values, but you can't go imposing them on anyone else as long as they're not breaking the law or hurting anyone. The Hasidic community may not like the fact that women in Montreal have the right to walk around - or work out - in tights and sleeveless tops, but the fact remains that they do. And, like it or not, the Hasidic community can't go around throwing stones at people who walk the streets in shorts, either. This isn't Meah Shearim, and I don't condone it when they do it there, either.

The Hasidic community has a right to its feelings on the matter, but doesn't have a right to impose those feelings on anyone else. We will all get along better when we recognize this.

|

 
2:13 AM
And on the issues front

The sweeping gains made by Democrats tonight only tell half the story. There were also a number of issues votes that, if nothing else, indicate that the country is feeling more anti-Bush right now than pro-Liberal. For example:

• Constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage won approval in South Carolina, Tenessee, Virginia and Wisconsin, with similar amendments on the ballot in 4 other states also expected to pass once the votes are tallied. This would mean that a total of 28 states - more than half - will have banned gay marriage in the U.S., delivering a serious blow to the hopes of people in favour of equality and civil rights.
  
  
• Arizona passed measures against illegal immigrants, including making English the state's official language.

On the other hand:

• Missouri passed a measure to guarantee stem cell research would be permitted.
  
  
• South Dakota's voters rejected an attempt to restrict abortion in the form of proposed legislation.

Some analysts have further noted that, though Democrats made significant gains, they may have done so at the expense of ideology, since many of the newly-elected Democrats are much more moderate than Liberal while many of the defeated Republican incumbants were on their party's more moderate wing. So the House (and possibly the Senate) may have shifted to the left, but both parties actually shifted to the right in the process.

What will it all mean? Your guess is as good as mine.

|

 
12:54 AM
It's not the size that counts, it's how you use it

Democrats have to be drunk with power tonight. With a decisive victory to take back the House of Representatives for the first time in 12 years, and even a narrow victory in the Senate within their sights, the overwhelming emotion among Democrats tonight must be one of feeling invincible.

But, for the sake of the United States, I hope that drunkedness subsides soon, or else all they'll be left with is a giant hangover.

All of the planets aligned for the Democrats right now. Increased frustration at Bush's policies - namely, the war in Iraq - combined with ill-timed sex scandals and a lot of general weariness led to a sort of protest vote against Republicans as proxies for Bush. But Democrats would do well to note that there's still two long years until 2008. That's enough time to either put up or shut up, so to speak.

It's easy to gain popularity by pointing fingers in opposition (well, for everyone but John Kerry, anyway). It's a lot harder to make excuses once you're in the hot seat. A lot of eyes will be on the Democrats now, looking to see what they do with these two years of limited power, in order to decide what to do about 2008. If tonight's vote was against Bush, the next presidential election will be about some sort of vision for the country... and despite the Democrats' victories tonight, they haven't conclusively demonstrated that they have one.

The Democrats, therefore, have a choice to make. They can either spend the next two years dragging the country down into myriad scandal investigations, handing out subpoenas like tissues and clamouring for time on TV. That's door number one, and it leads to a path of increased cynicism, frustration and disillusionment with politics in general.

Or, they can take the tougher road and start taking a stand on issues and trying to once again define a voice for the party. Door number two means taking whatever limited power you've been handed and trying to actually do something with it. Agree or disagree, voters will generally have a lot more respect for someone who leads than for someone who blames. This is what the Democrats didn't figure out in 2004, and from many of the interviews I'm seeing tonight with key Democrats, I don't think they've figured it out in 2006 either.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the Democrats weren't the big winners tonight. Not because a serious backlash could still result in a resounding Republican victory when it counts, in 2008's Presidential election - though it's certainly possible. But because we haven't seen anyone try to raise the standard of debate with this election. It's the same old corruption scandals, negative campaigning, negative issues, finger-pointing about Iraq and threatening of congressional investigations that we've seen a million times before. And it's coming from all sides.

In reality, there may be no true winners in tonight's election, only losers: the American people.

|

 
12:13 AM
Tonight's results

Key contests tonight:

• Congress: Democrats take control with a projected 16-seat gain.
  
• Senate: Still too close to call, but looks like the Republicans will narrowly hang on.
  
• Hockey: Habs 3-2 over Oilers in a shootout.

Everyone knows which one of those is the most important in my book, of course.

|

 
9:43 PM
While the Americans watch the election results...

I'm watching the hockey game, of course, like any good Canadian.

Nice to see Latendresse score his first NHL goal. Playing on the top line tonight, this was his big chance, and I'm glad to see him capitalize.

There's still 17 minutes left in the game, so Go Habs!

|

 
11:39 PM
The halfway-there elections

Tomorrow's U.S. midterm election is garnering way more attention than this non-event typically gets. The prospect of the Democrats taking back one or maybe even both houses has got a lot of people talking, but it's really the same old nonsense, rehashed.

If the Democrats take control of the House (somewhat likely) and/or the Senate (highly unlikely) tomorrow, will that mean Bush will be relegated to lame duck status? Is tomorrow's vote pivotal for gays/women/minorities/Iraq, or will it really not change very much? If the Democrats win some power, will they use it to legislate, or will they use it to launch a bunch of costly and pointless probes and investigations into Republican behaviour that will make voters sigh and roll their eyes at the endless scandal circus?

What will the results spell for 2008? Will it scare Republicans into a voter backlash, or will it energize the Democrats and give them momentum?

Personally, I hope that the Democrats gain control of Congress at least, not because I'm particularly disposed to favour one side or the other (I've already spelled out my objections to the giant either-or wedge in American politics numerous times) but because, on principle, I believe that absolute power corrupts absolutely. I've seen what happens too many times with the lack of a strong enough opposition. The Canadian Liberals, for instance. Even my years at Concordia were instrumental in demonstrating the pitfalls of having too much power concentrated in too few hands. The Bush administration has had a blank cheque for quite some time now, and it's time to instill some checks and balances in the form of a more powerful opposition.

Basically, what it boils down to is my belief that the more handcuffed a government is, the less it will be able to do... and, hence, the less harm it will be able to do. Like doctors, government officials ought to be required to swear an oath of office that begins with "first, do no harm". But, since they don't, the next best option is to limit their power as much as possible.

|

 
6:43 PM
Mmmmm... chocolate....

Way too much fun on a Sunday afternoon: the Salon Passion Chocolat at Place Bonaventure. Chocolate sculptures, chocolate truffles, chocolate liqueurs, chocolate spa treatments, and every kind of gourmet chocolate imaginable. Not to mention plenty of free samples. This chocoholic was impressed, anyway.

|

 
1:28 PM
Saddam sentenced

The verdict is in for the Butcher of Baghdad: death by hanging.

I'm sure that the US administration expected this to be a pivotal moment and a resounding victory. Instead, Saddam's execution will probably pass as a mere footnote to the ongoing violence in Iraq.

Still, there cannot be a punishment quite bad enough to befit the crimes that Saddam Hussein inflicted in the course of his dictatorship, and there really couldn't be any other verdict but a death sentence. So, barring an unlikely appeal victory, Saddam Hussein will probably hang by next month, and one less horrible dictator will be alive in the world.

It won't solve Iraq's problems. Far from it. But now, that seems almost besides the point.

|