Segacs’s World I Know

It must be a new sign of just how low society has fallen: Howard Stern sued ABC over a TV series that evaluates contestants solely based on looks:

The lawsuit, filed Thursday in Superior Court, accuses the network of copying the “unique aspects” of a Stern radio segment in which members of his crew and guests evaluate the bodies of in-studio contestants.

Stern claims that some of the tactics used on his show were duplicated by ABC’s version. Some of the alleged similarities include blunt criticism of contestants and the use of a laser pointer to highlight areas of the contestant’s body.

This might just be my utter disgust showing, but to me, it’s really sad that a radio personality and a network would be falling over themselves competing to claim this idea as their own. If I were them, I’d be fighting to disclaim it.

Controversial Italian writer Oriana Fallaci has a feature article published at OpinionJournal with thoughts on the prospect of war in Iraq. No matter what your views, it’s worth a read.

Speaking of Daniel Pipes, he has an editorial in today’s National Post, in which he claims that Bush’s policy on Israel and the Mideast is one of the only ambiguous and unclear areas of his presidency:

There is no ambiguity, no guessing what his real position might be, no despair at interpreting contradictions. Even his detractors never complain about “Tricky George” or “Slick Bush.”

But there is one exception to this pattern. And — couldn’t you have predicted it? — the topic is the Arab-Israeli conflict. Here, Bush not only seems unable to make up his mind but he oscillates between two quite contrary views.

Despite the fact that most people perceive the U.S. and Israel as strong allies, Pipes points out several cases in which the Bush administration backed the Palestinian side against Israel. For example, his simultaneous criticism of Palestinian terrorism and of the Palestinian Authority’s role in this terrorism, and calling upon Israel to make moves towards peace. Or in first demanding new Palestinian leadership as a prerequisite to more peace talks, and then backtracking in the so-called “roadmap” to peace.

Despite this, Pipes draws the conclusion that Bush’s token support of Palestinian statehood is due to pressure he is getting from international sources . . . but in truth his position is solidly on Israel’s side:

Observing these contradictions through two years of the Bush administration leads me to one main conclusion: In key ways — sympathy for Israel’s plight, diplomatic support, providing arms — Bush tends to ignore his own Palestinian-state rhetoric and stand solid with Israel. His statements demanding this from Israel and promising that to the Palestinians appear to be a sop to outside pressure, not operational policy.

In short, look at what President Bush does, not what he says, and you’ll find his usual consistency, this time hiding under a veneer of apparent indecision.

If this is accurate, then the road map is for show, not true policy, and U.S. endorsement of a Palestinian state remains remote.

Israel, on the other hand, seems more inclined to wariness where American initiatives towards peace are concerned. They recall all too well the pressure during the Clinton years to make concession after concession, all of which only served to weaken Israel’s position when the talks ultimately fell apart.

In a tragic case of mistaken identity, the IDF accidentally shot two Israelis yesterday, mistaking them for Palestinian terrorists.

Yehuda Ben-Yosef, 22, of Ma’aleh Adumim, and Sec.-Lt. Yoav Doron, 23, from Jerusalem who was on demobilization leave were hired by the regional council to guard an isolated outpost a kilometer northwest of Pnei Hever.

The IDF Spokesman expressed regret for the incident, calling it “a tragic mistake,” and said there will be investigation.

This was a very sad mistake of the sort that do happen in times of war. Compared to many wars, which have high levels of what the Israelis would call “balagan”, these incidents are – thankfully – rare in Israel. That doesn’t bring the two security guards back to life, of course.

It is worth noting that the Israeli army of course took responsibility right away and issued an apology for the mistake. Had this been the opposite, a case of innocent Palestinians killed by friendly fire, two years later they’d still be trying to pin their deaths on Israel, as in the case of Mohammed Al-Dura.

Daniel Pipes’s speech at McGill went off peacefully. Even the protestors were restrained, apparently:

Concordia Hillel co-president Noah Joseph, who helped organize yesterday’s speech, said the protesters had “every right to be there” and did not cause any trouble.

“They even had the courtesy to tell us when they would arrive,” Joseph said, adding that similar events at Concordia University were often marred by violence.

“You have to worry about your safety at Concordia. The McGill atmosphere, on both sides, is much safer,” he said.

Of course, the Gazette’s coverage focused mostly on the protest against Pipes, with only a short line about the speech itself. What do you expect? But at least there wasn’t a riot.

Meanwhile at Concordia . . . A Palestinian student, Nidal Al Alul, was arrested for uttering death threats:

A dazed and disheveled-looking Concordia University student appeared in municipal court yesterday on charges of uttering assault and death threats against four people at the downtown campus on Tuesday.

Nidal Al Alul, 19, a third-year commerce student, spent the night in a police lockup after he was arrested.

The incident is alleged to have occurred at the Hillel information table on the mezzanine level of the Henry F. Hall Building on de Maisonneuve Blvd. W.

Three of the complainants are civilians, while a fourth is a Concordia security guard.

The French daily rag, Montréal Métropolitain, adds that Al Alul approached the Hillel table and an argument broke out about war. He was trading insults with the people at the Hillel table and it disintegrated from there.

Yes, tensions are certainly high.

The U.S. Senate has approved a ban on partial-birth abortions. President Bush is said to be eager to sign the ban into law.

One of the most interesting books I’ve read lately is Protect and Defend by Richard North Patterson. It’s political and legal fiction set in the future, but the central issue examined in the book is that of partial-birth abortion. It deals with a case of a fifteen-year-old girl fighting for the right to abort her hopelessly defective fetus in aims of preserving her reproductive health and ability to bear future children. Due to a fictional “Protection of Life Act”, she needs parental consent for this procedure, which her staunchly pro-life parents refuse to give, so she takes them to court. Meanwhile, a new president is fighting to get his nominee for the Supreme Court confirmed by senate, and the very political future of the country hinges on the case of this fifteen-year-old.

The surrounding issues in the book – viability of the fetus, physical and mental health of the mother, parental consent laws, and, most importantly, how the issue is used by politicians to advance their own careers at the expense of privacy – seem almost prophetic, given today’s announcement. In fact, the following quote is almost identical to one contained in the novel:

California Democrat Barbara Boxer said “partial birth” is not a medical term, but a political one.

“They made up the term partial birth abortion,” she said. “There isn’t such a thing. … It’s a very emotional term but what we’re talking about here is a procedure that is used in situations where any other procedure might cause grave harm to the woman.”

For the record, I’m not “pro-abortion” in the same sense that I’m not “pro-war”. Abortion, like war, is always regrettable. But I am very definitely pro-choice. I don’t believe that the state has any right to meddle in the reproductive rights of a woman. Each and every situation is different, and the woman is always in a better position to weigh and judge the situation than some legislator lobbying for votes.

It may surprise some regular readers of the blog, but it’s precisely reasons like this one that turn me off from the right-wing political contingent both in the U.S. and here in Canada. A political party that presumes to dictate its own version of “morality” to the public – often at great expense – is not one I’d want to have anything to do with. Foreign policy and the war on terror has overshadowed some of these issues, but they still exist. And for the women caught in the middle of the debate, their hard-won rights are being curbed a bit more every day.

Okay, that’s it. I’ve had it. Everywhere I read about “lefties” this and “lefties” that. The “lefties” that control the Concordia CSU. The “lefties” that rally against Bush and hold up signs saying that Saddam is their hero. The “lefties” that decry corporations, capitalism, and just about everything about our society. We use the term as easy shorthand to describe anyone on the extreme left of the political spectrum, even though “rightie” is rarely used for the opposite. And I admit I’m just as guilty of it as anyone else.

I’m tired of it. As a lefty, I want – no, I demand that my good name be restored.

Yes, that’s right, I am left-handed. A southpaw.

Left-handed people make up about 10-15% of the population. We’re right-brain dominant, which makes us more creative and abstract in our thinking. It also makes us the only people in our right minds!

Famous lefties have included Julia Roberts, George Bush (Sr. – don’t know about Dubya), Bill Clinton, Oprah Winfrey, Nelson Rockefeller, Benjamin Netanyahu, Helen Keller, Jimi Hendirx, and perhaps most importantly, Matt Groening, creator of the Simpsons. (Anyone remember the Leftorium episode?)

Contrary to popular myth, we’re not possessed by the devil, nor are we more likely to die early. In the sixteenth century, lefties were burned at the stake for witchcraft. In the not-too-distant past, lefties were thought of as evil (the latin word for left, “sin”, literally means sinister) and were forced, often violently, to use their right hands. As a result, my grandmother always wrote with her right hand. Luckily those days are behind us, and now us lefties are free to write with our left, and equally free to rub over our words as we write. With the keyboard replacing the fountain pen, this is less of a problem nowadays.

We’re statistically more intelligent than righties. We can sometimes be a bit clumsy, but don’t blame us – blame the insensitive world who designed everything from a stick shift to a pair of scissors with righties in mind. We’re sought-out as baseball pitchers, and we’re over-represented in successful domains such as science, politics, and the arts. And we even have our own day! That’s right: August 13th is International Left-handers Day.

So the next time somebody calls you a lefty, smile; you’re in good company!

If you’re a lefty like me, I’ve compiled a list of interesting resources and links:

• For Southpaws Only!
• The Lefthanded Universe
• Famous left-handers
• Lorin’s Left-handedness site
• The Left Handed Liberation Society
• alt.lefthanders Frequently Asked Questions
• Left is Right

Lefthanded and proud!

Ariel Sharon said that had there been a world leader like Bush in the 30s, the Holocaust could have been prevented:

“It’s impossible to free one’s self from the feeling that if in Europe, in the 1930s, there had similarly been such a leader, it’s possible that Europe would not have been ravaged by World War II and that we, the Jewish nation, would not have paid the terrible price of losing 6 million people,” Sharon told members of Likud’s Knesset faction on Monday.

Well, now, I don’t know about that necessarily. The situation is always different each and every time, and playing “what if” is sort of futile. But Sharon’s point is that more lives are often lost through appeasement than through action.

Sharon was also very careful to make it clear that Israel is not involved in this war.

“We are neither pressing to move it forward, nor do we seek to postpone it. We know that this is a necessary attempt to bring an end to the capability of tyrannical regimes, such as the one in Iraq, to tangibly endanger the entire world.”

Yeah, tell that to the conspiro-freak antisemites who keep trying to claim otherwise, including Pat Buchanan.

The Security Council looks to be inching step closer to war with Iraq. It seems that Angola, Cameroon, and Guinea have tentatively indicated that they would back an American resolution in a vote.

A senior U.S. official said the United States had positive responses from three African members of the Security Council — Angola, Cameroon and Guinea — which had previously been uncommitted. “We’re assured by what we heard from them,” said the official, who asked not to be named.

Of course, France and possibly Russia or China may still veto such a resolution. And even without that, the U.S. is still two votes shy of the nine that it would need. Still uncommitted are Mexico, Pakistan, and Chile. If the U.S. wants to be able to claim that a resolution would have passed aside from a veto, it needs to get two out of the three onside.

Update: The U.S. now claims to have Pakistan’s support. That would put them only a single vote away from a majority. Pakistan, however, is not confirming this claim.