I'm Back!

Hello again to anyone that reads this blog. So I'm back now, and I hope to start this blog up again. I start working on my thesis in a few weeks, so hopefully I'll have things to write about. But for now here is something I've been thinking about for the last few days.

I was in Washington DC this past week and the first day I was there I saw the Korean War Memorial and the Vietnam Memorial. At the Korean War Memorial there is a wall that has the words, "Freedom is not Free". This quote really bothers me. Freedom is something that should be free. I understand that there are places on this earth where people are not free. But those are not the places that the US go to fight, instead they choose places that are strategic for them. Afghanistan was a war that was motivated by the feeling of revenge, and justifiably so. Iraq on the other hand was a war for so many different things, but not one of them, the freedom of Americans. Saddam Hussien never posed a serious threat to American freedom as in evidenced by the fact that there were no weapons of mass distruction. Iran and their nuclear program pose a much larger threat to American freedom than Iraq ever did. The problem with that is that the US cannot go into Iran because the threat is actually too high.

If freedom is not free than the Americans should be fighting the countries that are an actual danger to the US. Iran is probably the American's biggest threat. If they are able to have nuclear weapons then the balance of power in the Middle East will shift dramatically. Because the US has entered a war of attrition against terrorism that they cannot seem to even be winning, they are spread far too thin to be able to realistically mount a resonable response to the Iran question. Aside from the potential nuclear consequences, Iran also has the ability to drastically shift the global economy. If Iran was provoked, they could pepper the Strait of Hormuz, which is the main artery for Saudi, Iraqi, Kutwaiti, Bahraini, UAE and Iranian oil, with mines. These countries are all OPEC members and produce the majority of the world's oil and by putting mines in the strait it would stop the flow of oil to the rest of the world. This could throw the world into a severe depression and the US would be almost powerless to stop it.

When fighting for freedom the US needs to look at what the actual threat to their freedom is. I don't think that if the US were to go to war with Iran that American citizens would be any less free. As a Canadian I don't feel that the US is fighting for my freedom, and I'm sure there are many of countries that would feel the same way. If there was to be a war with Iran then the US would really by fighting for the freedom that their position as the most powerful nation provides them. If this is what freedom is, then I don't think that there should be a monument for it. In Washington the quote over looks the Korean War Memorial. To me the quote minimizes the amount of people that died in that war. Americans and many Canadians fought in the first conflict of the cold war. All the people that died were not fighting for the freedom of everyday life, they were fighting for America's position in the world.

Maybe I'm taking the quote too seriously, but as I was in Washington it seemed that nothing engraved in stone was to be taken lightly. For this reason I feel that it is justified to offer this critique.

Thoughts?

The Final Post?

So it turns out I suck at keeping this blog updated. I am really busy with school and am really lazy so this blog is done for now. Blogging is something that I want to do, so in the future I hope to resurrect this page and blog on a more regular basis. Thanks for the support from the friends that have encouraged me to write, I'll be back and better than ever soon enough. I'm hoping that during the summer I will be able to start writing again. Until then, keep fit and have fun!

Article

Here is an interesting article about band names from CBC

The CBC

Last night our national broadcaster was showing the Brit Awards. I'm a supporter of the CBC, I watch it on a regular basis for their hockey coverage as well as news and other programs. I have to admit though, I watch CBC newsworld much more. I believe that we need a national broadcaster like the CBC, it is a national institution and has the resources to really cover events "at home and around the world", to use their own motto. So when I turned on the CBC last night to see the Brit Awards I was taken aback and quite upset. Why was this on the CBC? Who would watch this awards show and why is it important for the CBC to cover it? Is the Brit Awards really important to Canadians that they feel the need to show it in prime time? I just don't get it. Decisions like this are not new to the CBC but they always baffle me. I like to think that I'm a pretty regular Canadian, whatever that means, and I don't feel an affinity towards the British. I don't think the "high culture" has to emanate from Britain like the Massey Report said it should, (the Massey Report was a report that was published in the 1950s saying that the CBC should focus on things that are of "high culture" namely British style programs and humor). Maybe this was just a way for the CBC to show how good George Stroumboulopoulos is at interviewing celebrities, but we've already all seen him on Muchmusic. It bothers me when tax payer dollars goes to things like the Brit Awards and not something more Canadian.

Shout out to the Chart Attack Hack, Strombo's (and my Brother's) hockey team

New Conservative Ads

Hello there, I know its been a while since I last posted, I have found it hard to find interesting things to write about, until now. This has been bothering me for a few weeks now, I'm talking about the new Conservative ads that have been showing on Canadian TV. The reason that they bother me is that they are using footage from the Liberal leadership debates and they take what Stephane Dion said completely out of context. I'm not necessarily defending Dion and the Liberals I just think that what the Conservatives are doing will in the end only hurt them and the democratic process. There isn't an election now so why are we subjected to these ads? The Conservatives keep bringing up the sponsorship scandal, haven't we as a country earned the right to put that behind us? I am so sick of hearing about the scandal, and just when people were starting to forget it, they bring it up again. I think this shows that the Conservatives are afraid of the Liberals and this is the only way to gain points in the all important opinion polls. Come election time I hope that these ads end up hurting the Conservatives.

Another Interesting Article

Thanks to my Dad for showing my this one.

Environmentalism

As I was driving around this morning I was listening to CJOB and they were talking about environmentalism. The host of the show was asking people if environmentalism is really the number one election issue in Canada today. Recently environmentalism in the polls was placed as the number one election issue in Canada putting health care in the number two spot. The host of the show raised an interesting point, that if the economy wasn't doing so well no one would be talking about the environment. I think he was right, and in that regard the environment probably isn't that number one election issue. But what I didn't like was that it seemed that he was saying that we shouldn't put as much emphasis on the environment because if things were different it wouldn't be the number one election issue. I think that at a time like this when the economy is doing well and people are generally happy, we need to take advantage and make progress on issues like the environment. There is no denying that it is an important issue and will only get more important in the future. The environment is also a big issue right now because the Liberals have made it an issue. A warm winter coupled with Stephane Dion's policies have made this a huge issue and if the winter was cold and Michael Ignatieff had won the Liberal leadership no one would be talking environment and I wouldn't have written this post.

Blogging is Harder Than it Looks

So I have found it quite hard lately to find something good to write about. There has been lots going on in the past week but none are really that interesting. Bush made a big speech, I watched the NHL skills competition instead. Moshe Katsav is going to be indicted for rape, who really wants to read about that? So I guess this is just a heads up to the 3 people that read this blog, that I'm always reading and looking for new things to write and I'll be back with something interesting as soon as something interesting happens. In the meantime here is an interesting article about a grave injustice being done on a young guy in Georgia.

Interesting Article

Thanks to Ingo for pointing out this interesting article from Ha'aretz

Jews and Stephen Harper

It really bothers me when Jews tell me they are going to vote for Stephen Harper in the next election because he supported Israel in Lebanon. I understand that not many Canadian Prime Ministers have supported Israel outright like Harper did but that doesn't give a good reason to vote for him. What I mean by this is although Harper supported Israel his support means nothing. Canada does not have a role in the Middle East and especially not in Israel. People want to vote for leaders that support their causes, and Jews support Israel, but the fact the Harper supported Israel doesn't mean that the other leaders are anti-Semitic or that they hate Israel. People put way too much emphasis on the fact that Harper supported Israel one time. We should elect our leaders based on a number of issues and especially ones that actually matter to Canada. What happens in the Middle East has absolutely no baring on domestic Canadian politics and Canada's involvement in the region is non-existent and inconsequential. I think that Harper only supported Israel because the Americans did. He wants to show Bush Jr. that he will support its endeavors in the region. Harper can and will support the US on a number of issues and if one wants this to continue then they should vote for Harper, but his support for Israel should be seen as some great turn of events for the Jews of Canada. If you want to vote for Harper go ahead, but vote for him because you think he's good for Canada and will be beneficial to you in your life in Canada, not because he supported Israel. Canada doesn't have a roll in the Middle East!

IDF Chief Resigns

Today the Israel Defence Forces Chief of Staff Dan Halutz resigned. His resignation comes after the loss in the Second Lebanon War in the summer of 2006. Halutz is the first official to resign over the debacle that was the war, and certainly not the last. The war in Lebanon was originally started as a response to the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers and this was the main reason for waging the war. the Israeli objectives of the war were 1) to get the kidnapped soldiers back, and 2) to destabilize Hezbollah and rid Lebanon of their influence. Neither of these objectives were met and if anything the war raised the awareness and the popularity of Hezbollah. On the Israeli side, the war proved to everyone that Ehud Olmert is not Ariel Sharon, and has no real idea on how to wage a war. The question now is, who was responsible for this embarrassing defeat? Halutz was the first Chief of Staff to have an air force background and this could be one of the reasons why the war was mostly fought unsuccessfully from the air. Other contributing factors to the defeat were the appointment of Amir Peretz to the post of Defence Minister by Ehud Olmert. This was such an odd move by the PM. The nature of Israeli politics are such that leaders from parties are given high profile cabinet positions in order to support the ruling party's coalition government. So in this context it does make sense that Paretz would get a high profile position, but the Defense portfolio is one that doesn't fit him. He doesn't have a military background and has proven that he doesn't know much about war and how to fight it. Ehud Olmert is the other major contributor to the lose of the war. Olmert also doesn't have much military background and although he has been in the government for a few years he really was just Ariel Sharon's sidekick that had to take over once Sharon got sick. The outcome of the war will be a shift back to the right in Israel and possibly the return of Bibi Netanyahu to the PMO. There is no way that Olmert can win another election. his ratings are extremely low and 85% of Israelis think that his government is corrupt (the pending corruption charges don't help this). shift to the right in Israel could see the reoccupation of the Gaza Strip (I think this is on the extreme side) there would be almost no progress on the peace process and the possibility of Israel intervening in Iran will definitely increase. Needless to say a shift to the right would be detrimental to the Palestinians (as was Netanyahu's term as PM in the 90s), and to Israelis who are sick of losing wars and seeing their civilians dying.

Currently listening to "We Shall Overcome: The Seeger Sessions" by Bruce Springsteen

Here is a cool image of Saddam that I had to share

Rice and Abbas

Today Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met in Ramallah to talk about the the prospects for peace. Abbas rejected the idea of a provisional Palestinian state with temporary borders saying that they will eventually end up with a state that has truncated borders. Rice went to the Middle East with no real plan to bring peace to region and the trip has been seen as more of a mission to boost support for the US's addition of 21,000 troops to Iraq. What I find interesting about this story is that, 1) Rice didn't have any plan when she went to the Middle East. This is so odd, she went to talk about the Road Map for Peace and the prospects for peace based on that plan. The Road Map seemed dead, I haven't heard anyone talk about it for years already so when I read that she was using it as a framework for discussion it didn't make any sense. 2) Why would the Palestinians ever go for a plan that doesn't solidify its borders. The rejection of this plan is the only move that the Palestinians can make or else they would see a state that didn't accurately reflect the Palestinian population and no hope of control over the Temple Mount. 3) Although not specifically mentioned in any article about this that I read, the Temple Mount is perhaps the most contentious issue in this debate and a discussion on final borders cannot even begin without a plan for the Temple Mount that includes such groups as the Vatican, the US, and even France as the country with the most Roman Catholics.
The reality of the current situation is that Iran and Israels desire to wipe out the Iranian nuclear program is a much more pressing issue then provisional borders of a Palestinian state. On the Palestinian side the civil war between Fatah and Hamas that seems inevitable needs to be resolved before they can seriously think about a state.

Currently listening to Amadu and Mariam's "La Realite"

Talking Politics

So today I went to my Uncle's shiva house and was talking to my cousin about my thesis and Israel and the situation in the Middle East. When I lived in Israel i quickly realized that although I am a political science major, and now getting my masters in political studies I really don't like talking politics with people. It is usually pretty hard to find some common ground and it ends up just being two people talking to themselves. I find this so annoying, I feel that I have an open mind about things but obviously I have my own views about things too. So I got into a conversation about Israel and it was really great. My cousin was interested in what I had to say and I was interested in what he had to say. It was so refreshing to have this type of back and forth give and take. I hate that I'm writing about this, this should happen all the time. This shouldn't make me feel good, this should be the norm. People are so close minded and it is so hard to get people to see eye to eye on a specific issue. I don't mean to over simplify but if people could have meaningful debate I think things in this world wouldn’t be so grim.

Currently listening to BTO's "You Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet"

The Family

Today was the funeral of my great uncle. This was a man that I didn't necessarily know all that well but was still part of my extended family. I love family, it is very important to me, but I never had any real grandparents. My maternal grandmother died when my mom was 12 and her father passed when I was 1o, but had Alzheimer's from when I was 4 or 5. So I didn't know them. My paternal grandfather died when I was 3 and my grandmother, the only grandparent I have ever really known lives in Toronto and was never a big part of my life. So I found it odd today when I felt a sadness at my uncle's passing. He wasn't any sort of grandfatherly figure to me, just my zaida's brother. I think it could have to do with the fact that my zaida was one of 13 kids and my uncle's passing means that there are only 3 more siblings left from this massive clan, all 3 have cancer. This closing of a generation really saddens me. I feel that the family has gone through so many hardships that we will never be a full family again. These last brothers are the last remnant of another era, another time in the history of the family. As I was at the shiva after the funeral I felt like I was drowning in a sea of family, which should feel great, but it made me anxious. I was the only one of my generation from my sect of the family and I didn't feel close to the people around me. Surrounded by family I couldn't have been farther away. I guess I just wish that I could go back in time and meet this family that is no more.
Last night my mom referenced a family superstition. Seldom does my mom mention "family superstitions" but she has before. As I lied in my bed I was thinking about this superstition, that a pregnant girl in the family can't go to a funeral. my cousin is pregnant and she didn't come to the funeral today. I thought this was so weird. Who knows these superstitions, where did they come from, how will they live on? I wish I could go back in time so that I could hear these first hand from the brothers and sisters themselves. "Family superstitions" are such an interesting tradition and I would love to be in a family that has them, that sense of tradition and mystery all mixed in together. But I'm not in that family, my family doesn't have these superstitions, my mom's family does, but not mine. Anyways, just some thoughts.

Currently listening to Bob Dylan's Modern Times album

Here We Go!

Well hello there,
This is the obligatory first post explaining the name of the blog. The Radical Breach is a saying in one of my favorite Paul Simon songs, Me and Julio Down By The School Yard. Now I know its pretty lame to name a blog after such a famous song and songwriter, but I'm going to try to explain my reasoning anyway.
1. I love Paul Simon
2. I want this blog to be an outlet for my views on issues of life and the world and I hope that I make people think outside their normal views, thus being a "radical breach" from their everyday thinking.

So there you go.

Currently listening to "Still Crazy After All These Years" by Paul Simon