The Bourbon Logs

Are we having more fun, or are we simply taking more pictures?

Lord Boomaroom

Dear Mr. MacKay.

I want to express my thoughts regarding your government’s response to the conflict in Lebanon.

First, I congratulate your government on the quick and generous handling of the evacuation of Canadian citizens from Lebanon. I’m sure it wasn’t a perfect operation on the ground, but your heart and resources were in the right place and I think you did us proud.

However, I am somewhat dismayed by the lack of criticism, and of the complicit nature of your government’s response to Israel with respect to Lebanon. Our Prime Minister called the Israeli response “measured”. This is outrageous. Israel is inflicting collective punishment against the innocent civilians of Lebanon. They are killing innocent women and children by the score, and the victims thus far include eight Canadian civilians and one Canadian peacekeeper. It is doing so without regard of the consequences to life and property, in part because governments like Canada do not register their protests to this behaviour. I support Israel’s right to protect itself, to self-defense. I join with the world in condemning Hezbollah and the doctrine of terrorism, but this does not imply that any response is justified. What Israel is doing is wrong and its illegal, and it’s time your government said so.

Sincerely,

chinaski

[editors note: Chinaski doesn’t appear to have any references in the following piece, and may in fact have written it under the influence. Where he gets his numbers we don’t know. We publish it here uncensored and unreferenced as a service to our readers and because chinaski is always willing to buy us a drink.]

Regarding the Canadian position on what’s happening in the Lebanon right now, Stephen Harper appears to be reading a script prepared by a US state department official and faxed directly to Sussex Drive. Instead of condemning the Israeli response to the kidnapping of two soldiers by Hezbollah, we get tepid, cautionary language from our Prime Minister. He called the Israeli response “measured”. On the killing of UN peacekeepers, including a Canadian, he accepts the Israeli explanation at face value, and refuses again to condemn or chastise a government and an army that appears to be acting inside a vacuum where consequences do not matter.

In one sense I suppose that Harper is correct. The Israeli aggression could be described as “measured” in the sense that a metric can be found to compare it against. The American invasion of Iraq comes to mind. Both are described using the now familiar phrase “war on terror”. Both pit one side with overwhelming military superiority against another whose only option to strike back with guerilla tactics. In both cases the vast majority of casualties are civilians. In the case of Iraq, the death ratio is somewhere between 50 and 100 to 1. This means that for every American soldier killed, there are between 50 and 100 Iraqi civilians killed. At least this was true in the initial stages of the invasion when Americans were actively killing civilians in great numbers. I think the situation on the ground has now changed, in that American soldiers are not now killing civilians in large numbers. That job has been taken over by both sides in the Sunni-Shia conflict, and by all accounts they are doing the job fabulously well. The grim death multiple applies as well to the conflict in Lebanon. For every Israeli soldier killed, there are many times more innocent civilians killed. I think right now there are some 450 civilian deaths and many times that wounded, versus 17 Israeli soldiers killed as I write.

So yes, Mr. Harper, let me say that you are correct in your assertion that the Israeli response is “measured”, but only in the most perverse sense of the word. When measured against colossal injustice, the Israeli response can be said to be measured, but only then. When measured against a civilised standard, by the rules of war and the rule of international law, the assertion does not stand up. And shame on our Prime Minister for his failure to take an appropriate position on the matter.

It appears that American interests are being furthered by the Israeli response in Lebanon. What those interests are I don’t know, but I can make a guess. It appears that American foreign policy in regards to the Middle East boils down to a simple maxim: “kill a lot of Arabs” (there is a corollary to this, which is “pump a lot of their oil”). Clearly this policy is augmented by the situation in Lebanon, as there are many Arabs being killed. Condeliza Rice says the US wants a ceasefire, but not right away. I read that to mean “not until many more Arabs are killed”. America doesn’t just put lip service to their foreign policy. They back it up with action, with deeds. They have provided the very bombs and missiles that Israel is using to kill Arabs in Lebanon, the planes and helicopters that help deliver the bombs, the technology that helps Israel target and destroy Lebanese civilians.

And Canada is now a partner in all of this. We are lock and step in with the Americans. Any response is appropriate where Israel is involved, and when Arabs are suffering the consequences.

you’ve poisoned the well dear
you’ve poisoned the well
you’ve spoken the words that
nobody should tell
we could be in heaven
instead we’re in hell
you’ve poisoned the well dear
you’ve poisoned the well

i could never imagine
your tender embrace
would ever allow you
to fall out of grace
and it’s half what you do
and it’s half what you say
and it’s half about watching
your time fly away

is it the devil that holds you
so clost to his chest
does the flame of suggestion
burn in your breast
what cost for his whispers
how high is the price
how dark is your night dear
how sharp is the knife

some doors that are open
will never be closed
some things still unspoken
yet everyone knows
you’ll always remember
the place that you’re from
some bonds that enmesh us
cannot be undone

joy happens

lord boomaroom

Lord Boomaroom said this about the quote above: “I started out writing a haiku on joy, and then became impatient.”

We took in the film finally last night at Vancouver’s Fifth Avenue Cinemas. Our inspiration was an email I received from my niece, who took in the movie last week and recommended it heartily. It’s nice when the young people inspire us “oldsters”.

For myself, the movie was under-whelming in a lot of ways. Nothing in it was surprising or new to me. I’ve been aware for some time about the issue and have long ago accepted the hypothesis of global warming, that human activity is causing the earth to warm. My own thinking, reading and listening of late indicates to me the problem is getting worse faster than anticipated, and that we may and probably are at a point where we can’t do much about it. That is the depressing thought.

I guess that is what was uplifting in a way about the movie. Gore is a politician, and is definitely spinning the story. For me, the spin was positive. I think that wasn’t the case for many or even most who attended the screening. Many at the movie seemed visibly and audibly affected by what they were seeing. If you are a newcomer to the topic it is sobering stuff. Photos of melting glaciers in particular were striking. When you are documenting the end of the world as we know it there are bound to be tears. However, Gore knows what he’s doing. There was much uncomfortable laughter when Gore used irony and satire to “soften the blow”. He knows his audience, and more than that he knows his presentation. The humour comes as a relief to many, especially those that have not seen the facts presented and summarized in such clarity. The one time i laughed was when footage of George H. Bush appeared, giving an infamous speech in the 1992 campaign when Bill Clinton and Gore defeated the Bush/Quayle ticket. I have to share the quote with you - it is one of the funniest things i’ve heard in awhile:

This guy is so far out in the environmental extreme we’ll be up to our necks in owls and outta work for every American.

George H. Bush, on Vice-presidential candidate Al Gore, in the 1992 Presidential campaign

As politician, you have to represent a constituency. Bush Jr. represents big oil and big dirty coal (well so did his dad but let’s not go there…). And fear, let’s not forget that. Bush represents a great deal of fear. But what about Gore? I think the not-so-subtle message from the film, and the political message of it, is that Gore represents everyone else in America. Gore is not big oil and he’s not big dirty coal and he is not fear. I think everyone present went through their own alternate history as the film progressed. What if Gore had won and Bush lost? Would the world be different? I think Gore is suggesting that it still can be different. It’s a political film.

The film ends on an upbeat note. Something can be done. Carbon emissions can be drastically reduced. Change can happen, and it can happen without major restructuring of the global economic system. Consumers can make a difference by the products that they buy. Going green is good for the economy, not bad. Toyota vs. GM is cited as an example. For me, this is spin I’m comfortable with. I’ll take a “green is good” message over “war is good” anyday. Gore is optimistic. That’s his mandate, his contituency.

A politician cannot be pessimistic, or even realistic, at least not outside France. To acknowledge the problem in such a deliberate and forceful manner and yet at the same time remain optimistic that something can be done to avert the catastrophe is to stake out political ground. Will a movement to nominate Gore for another run at the Presidency gain traction on this ground? I hope so.

I posted a note on the Giant Hogweed problem recently, and it seems I’m not the only one in the know about this growing problem. The Burnaby NewsLeader, a local paper published weekly in Burnaby, has posted a piece on the very same topic.

What are my sources? How do I manage to scoop everyone else on this topic? Ah, that’s my own secret….

Here’s the link.

Following is an email I wrote recently (well, it was a couple of weeks ago) regarding highway expansion in the Lower Mainland. It is a lost cause really trying to get this group of business-oriented profit-centered politicians to do anything positive when it comes to the environment, but you have to try and win them over somehow. After all, they have kids too, and they have to look themselves in the mirror occasionally. Wally Oppal, our MLA, is, I believe, a good and decent man by all accounts. His bailiwick is definitely not the environment, but rather justice. However, he is part of the governing party in this province, and a cabinet minister to boot. The purpose of the email was to simply to “educate”, to point out to him an example of an “enlightened” politician’s response to the problem of the automobile. That the politician represents an extremely poor city in a country that is anything but affluent is all the more reason to share his triumphs. We build new roads and highways in the rich and affluent west in the pig-headed belief that “one more highway will solve our problems” while poorer regions take bold initiatives and break new ground.

I never did receive a written response to this email, but did receive a curious response almost immediately from Mr. Oppal’s office staff. I received a phone call about an hour after I sent the email from somebody representing Mr. Oppal. The fellow was earnest, and even a bit aggressive. He said something like “you haven’t received an email response from Mr. Oppal because he is going to respond with a written letter. You should receive it either today or tomorrow.” This indicated that the letter was already written and sent. Such is not the case however. No letter has been received by yours truly, and I’m not suprised.

Dear Mr. Oppal.

As a member of your riding I have emailed to you recently regarding the Eagleridge Bluff protests over the expansion of the highway from Vancouver to Whistler. You did not respond to that email.

Recently your government pledged to go ahead with massive spending on highway expansion in the lower mainland. I’m referring to the Gateway project. I have said that cars are a twentieth century technology. Your massive subsidization of this technology is wrong and backward-thinking.

I realise that the your government is more interested in short-term decisions that will maximize your chances at reelection. The long term consequences of your decisions around transportation mean far less to you than the potential votes you will gain by pandering to current car owners, the trucking industry, etc. Pollution, global warming, congestion, these things seem to mean little to you. They will mean something to your grandchildren however.

Here is a link to a piece about a politician with some real vision around transportation. I provide it here only in the hopes that you will read and be influenced.

http://thetyee.ca/Views/2006/06/23/Mayor/

Sincerely,
Chinaski

This photo is from the City of Burnaby website, and shows the size that the invasive species commonly known as Giant Hogweed can grow to. Many people have this plant growing in their yard. We have a neighbour down the street who was giving cuttings of the plant to family and friends. It is an exotic looking plant, there’s no mistaking. However, this plant is considered armed and definitely dangerous. Contact with its sap can cause mild to severe burns on the skin, and potentially can cause blindness. The scars from a close encounter with this giant can last for up to 6 years. This despite the fact that you can often buy this plant for sale at places that should know better.

If you have this plant growing in your vicinity, don some protective clothing and dig it up. Enclose it in plastic bags, and dispose of it. This is not one to compost. If you see it growing in your neighbourhood, on public property, call the city and tell them about it. For more information check the link….