Segacs’s World I Know

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 grandiosity 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.

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):

Looking back at the last four years, the world can learn some invaluable lessons from Israel’s war on terror.

The first is, quite simply, recognizing that this is a war — a total war, an existential war, a war of survival. A national leader, accordingly, must put virtually all other considerations aside. He or she must seek to create a national consensus and to maintain vital alliances — to emulate Churchill in 1940 and Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor. Even then, the state and its leaders must be prepared to endure significant stress internally and bitter condemnations in the international arena.

Secondly, victories can be won against terror without totally devastating the host society. Victory is possible while maintaining basic moral and democratic values. This, arguably, is Israel’s greatest achievement in this war, for though the Palestinian people declared war against not just the state but also the people of Israel, we did not retaliate with war against the Palestinians. Throughout, Israel used only a fraction of its military force, and never fired a single artillery shell at a Palestinian target. And though some Palestinian neighbourhoods, particularly in Gaza, have suffered extensive damage, Palestinian society has not been reduced to rubble — no place in the territories even remotely resembles Dresden in 1945 or Hanoi in 1972 or Chechnya today. No place evokes a sense of what a country would look like after it had sent successive waves of suicide bombers against the civilian populations of France or Russia or the United States.

From a state of near-paralysis at the end of 2000, Israel has rebounded. The hotels are filled and the restaurants, though now gated and guarded, are packed. In this year alone, Israelis garnered the country’s first Nobel Prizes in chemistry, its first Olympic gold medal and the championships of both European basketball leagues — heady achievements for a nation at war.

I would urge other Western nations to take a close look. Israel has been your litmus, your laboratory. We have shown the world that you can prevail against terror.

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.

Three months ago, the noisy neighbour moved in next door.

You know the one I’m talking about. You probably have one of your own. Every building does.

The one who blares the TV at 2am. The one who feels the need to clean out her closet at 7am on weekends. The one who is constantly receiving phone calls or having visitors at the specific hours when you are finally able to grab a few hours’ sleep.

The noisy neighbour is a prototype. Or maybe more of a stereotype. But she has an uncanny way of knowing those days when you need to wake up at 4am to catch a flight for a 14-hour day of business meetings, and she picks those days to keep you up till 3am the night before listening to her taste in music. She also has an uncanny way of knowing exactly when you were looking forward to sleeping in after a week of 14-hour workdays, and picks exactly that Saturday morning to set her alarm clock so loud that you can listen to the 7am news along with her. It’s ever so thoughtful of her to assume that you need to know what’s going on in the world right then.

I was spoiled when I moved in here because the previous occupant of the apartment next door was quiet as a mouse. But then the noisy neighbour moved in, forever shattering my notion of a good night’s sleep.

So now I’m debating whether to fight back. Do I subject my noisy neighbour to my taste in music at hours when I’m awake and she’s asleep? Of course, that strategy risks backfiring… as it would turn me into the noisy neighbour of the people on the other side.

Oh well, in absence of sleep I guess I’ll turn to the second-best idea: coffee.

Bin Laden Accuses Bush of Deceiving Americans:

Osama bin Laden accused President Bush of deceiving the American people and said the Sept. 11 attacks would not have been so severe if the president had been alert.

This is too funny to not be an elaborate spoof. Especially since I still believe Bin Laden’s been dead for two years. Some lookalike probably wondered if Reuters would be fooled and report this verbatim.

In any case, I bet in next week’s Onion, we’ll see the logical comeback:

Bush Accuses Bin Laden of Attacking Americans.

Arafat’s “condition”, which probably is nowhere near as serious as the reports are making it out to be, is inspiring articles that predict how Arafat’s “legacy” will be rewritten by the press. Reuters can always be counted on to lead off with a shining example:

Foreign doctors rushed to Yasser Arafat’s side on Thursday to tend to the seriously ill Palestinian leader, who for decades has symbolized his people’s struggle for statehood. [ . . . ] The ex-guerrilla, loved by most of his people and reviled by many Israelis, has had stomach pains since last week.

Let’s deconstruct that short, seemingly innocuous excerpt, shall we?

Symbolized his people’s struggle for statehood – is that so? Then why has he repeatedly not only rejected every single offer that would have led to Palestinian statehood, but done everything in his power to sabotage them? Why did he walk away from 97% of the West Bank, all of Gaza, and half of Jerusalem at Camp David in 2000 without so much as a counter-proposal, and instead launch a 4-year campaign of terror? Because he doesn’t symbolize the Palestinian “struggle for statehood”, he symbolizes the Palestinian struggle to wipe Israel off the map.

Ex-guerrilla – really? In one sense, Arafat is still a guerrilla, strictly speaking. He’s not the legitimate leader of a state, because he has no state. He’s not reformed. He hasn’t renounced violence – in fact, he encourages violent guerrilla tactics. In another sense, he was never a guerrilla, because that term implies that he’s fighting a war against a military enemy. By directing his fight against innocent civilians, Arafat never earned the description of guerrilla. Isn’t it time to call a terrorist a terrorist?

Loved by most of his people – only in his own mind, perhaps. Certainly not according to a recent PCPSR poll, which puts his popular support down at around 35%, and support for his Fatah party at about 25%. Anecdotal evidence suggests widespread disgust with Arafat among Palestinians, belief that he led them astray, and contempt that his Palestinian Authority is corrupt and lines its own pockets. Many believe he isn’t extreme enough, and cast their support with groups like Hamas. But to suggest he’s “loved by most of his people” is a gross misrepresentation, to say the least.

Reviled by most Israelis – I suppose Israelis revile him for the colour of his keffiyah. Yeah, that must be it. The thousands of Israelis who he was directly responsible for murdering must have nothing to do with it.

Look for more of this nonsense if Arafat’s condition worsens. In fact, most newspapers keep pre-written obituaries handy for public figures in poor health, just in case. I can’t imagine what praises and glorifications the staff at Reuters, the Guardian, and the CBC are working on now.

11/01 – Update: I guess I don’t have to wonder anymore what drivel the BBC will come up with. This makes my point nicely. Excuse me, I think I’m going to be sick.

The ever-spiralling West Wing takes another plunge into freefall by presuming that a peace treaty between the Israelis and Palestinians is a simple matter of getting Martin Sheen and some actors together at Camp David for a game of basketball. Oh yeah, and throw in a blonde cute actress who thinks she can charm the Arafat-like character into renouncing the “right of return”. Excuse me while I laugh hysterically.

Tonight’s episode kept hovering between propaganda and naiveté, and left me too busy rolling my eyes to truly be angry about its portrayal. It wasn’t even on-target enough to make me angry.

An article in the Forward disagrees (link requires registration). But I’m not sure what TV show the article’s writer was watching. Certainly not the same show I was.

I’ve written before about how upset I am over the West Wing’s plunge from brilliance to mediocrity. Now I can’t help but sigh… and miss what was.

The news keeps happening much faster than I can keep up on it. Funny how that happens, ain’t it? At any rate, until I can successfully build my time machine that will allow me to “pause live reality” and catch up while everyone else is in freeze-frame, here’s an in-brief recap:

• Sharon’s Gaza disengagement plan was approved by the Knesset after some typically-Israeli political jockeying that’s still ongoing. Netanyahu’s threatening mutiny unless Sharon agrees to hold a referendum, but so far, Sharon’s not budging. The settler fringe is of course up in arms – somewhat literally – and on the anniversary of the Rabin assassination, some can’t help but wonder if Sharon is looking over his shoulder these days. Despite being uncomfortable with the idea of the plan being perceived by the Palestinians as a reward for terrorism, and my general overall pessimism about the whole conflict, I can’t help but think that despite the mess, Sharon will land on his feet. He always does. For more, see Allison and Jonathan.

• The CJC has Issued another statement responding to the remarks by Canadian Islamic Congress leader Mohamed Elmasry that said that all adult Israelis are ‘legitimate targets’ for terrorism. The CJC statement called the CIC marginal and irrelevant, no matter whether Elmasry resigns or not. The CIC, you will recall, likes to believe it speaks for all Canadian Muslims. I personally am waiting to hear a huge outcry from Canadian Muslims who believe that this organization does not represent them. I’m still waiting. I think I’ll be waiting a while. The police, by the way, are investigating Elmasry’s remarks as a hate crime.

• Speaking of the CIC, they’re the same group that issued an election report card urging Canadian Muslims to vote for or against specific candidates (seemingly based on how pro- or anti-Israel they are). Damian points to anti-American remarks by Liberal MP Yasmin Rantisi, the first Muslim woman elected to Parliament. Something tells me the CIC would give her an “A”.

• Arafat’s ill health continues to dominate the news. My feeling is that this is an overexaggeration designed to cause panic and an outpouring of sympathy for Arafat. Meryl’s not betting on anything but she does have an interesting idea for a Magen David Adom matching fund if any Arab dictators croak. Arafat would be included in this, it seems. MDA is one of my favourite charities and the irony just seems deliciously appropriate.

• Less than a week before the US election and it’s still too close to call. I’m thinking Tuesday might be a good time to actually get some work done, since everyone will be preoccupied with voting and watching the results. Hmmmm.

• There was a lunar eclipse tonight. I didn’t get much of a view of it but I hear that people who had clear skies and lines of sight were wowed.

• Oh yeah, and the Red Sox won the World Series, breaking an 86-year “curse”.

Ha’aretz reports that Yasser Arafat’s medical condition is more serious than originally reported:

A team of doctors, some from Tunisia, Jordan, and the director of the Ramallah hospital arrived at the Muqata in Ramallah to treat Arafat. Arafat’s personal physician, Dr. Ashraf Al-Kurdi, is scheduled to arrive from Jordan.

[ . . . ]

Arafat spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeineh told reporters that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Jordanian King Abdullah had offered to send medical teams Thursday for follow-up checks.

As doctors from Tunisia, Jordan, and Ramallah, “fight to save his life”, there’s one question that nobody’s asking – because the answer is self-evident. That is, would Arafat see a Jewish doctor or be treated in an Israeli hospital to save his life. Because the Palestinian medical system leaves what to be desired, and the Israeli one is envied throughout the world for the advanced level of care that it provides.

Hey, for all I know, maybe the best specialists for Arafat’s condition are in Tunisia, Jordan, or Egypt. But something tells me that if they were in Tel Aviv, they would help Arafat if he asked them to. And that Arafat would rather die than accept their help.

That, in a nutshell, says everything one needs to know about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Mirabel Airport, which was supposed to be a great international travel hub but instead spent most of its nearly thirty years of existence as a white elephant, is finally closing its doors next week. And it’s about time:

Montreal-Mirabel International Airport employees worked their last week on the massive site as the airports prepares for permanent closure at the end of the month.

When Canadian Prime Minister Pierre-Elliott Trudeau inaugurated the site in October 1975, planners envisioned Mirabel handling some 40 million passengers flying in and out on six strips by 2000.

The fatal flaw was that Mirabel is located some 60 kilometers away from the city it is supposed to serve, and there is no fast public transportation to get from one point to the other.

No major carrier ever located to Mirabel, even though the airport authority sought to be the exclusive home base of trans-Atlantic flights.

A veritable ghost town these past few years, Mirabel’s greatest achievement was perhaps being the filming location of the music video for Our Lady Peace’s “Life”. Not one of the great structures of the city’s history, needless to say.

Mirabel Airport, like the Big O, will forever go down in Montreal history as a great gaffe in judgement. Adios!