Maggie's War

I do not have a strong opinion one way or the other on Margaret Thatcher or her legacy. You probably know as much or more about her than I do, especially if you've seen the movie.

If I were playing word association, the first thing that would come to my mind when you say "Margaret Thatcher" is "Falkland Islands". I remember nothing of how Thatcher governed her nation but the Falklands War made a big impression on me.

It was the first war I remember, and it was very exciting. Every evening Knowlton Nash would host a special edition of The National on CBC and give an update on the progress of the war, with maps and footage and stats. I was allowed to stay up and watch this because, I guess, it was a unique opportunity.

It ended up being more unique than one might have predicted at the time. I cannot think of a war since that was fought with the same honour, if you will, or gamesmanship. Every war since, that I recall at least, has involved dirty tactics or massive civilian casualties -- snipers shooting people in the streets, terrorists planting mines and IEDs, car bombs, unmanned drones, mortars fired recklessly into a city or neighboring country, combatants disguised as civilians, genocidal slaughters, etc.

War is always a terrible thing, but modern war is absolutely appalling

I guess this is why I look back almost fondly at the Falklands war. I don't wish to glamourize it or romanticize it, but it was a classic war. A traditional battle between two countries duking it out over a hunk of land. No other countries got involved. Nobody else got hurt. There was Country A (Argentina) claiming a group of islands as its own, and Country B (the UK) defending it's claim of those islands. And ... there was a clear winner.

Britain, with its sizable navy, had a smaller but crafty opponent to contend with. Argentina had fighters armed with French-made Exocet missiles that, when dropped from a jet, would race just above the surface of the water and blast a hole in the hull of the ship, if the ship's defenses failed to blow it out of the air first. The Brits lost the HMS Sheffield in this way. I can't imagine the stress of being on a ship with one of those missiles heading towards me.

In all there were 907 casualties, of which only 3 were civilian. That is 3 too many, but that ratio beats the hell out of any recent war you've seen or read about.

Watching the war on TV, I was certainly aware that people were dying and understood what that meant, but the sacrifice and suffering didn't really register. That's certainly part of it too. For me it was more like a game or my evening entertainment. I am now much more cognizant of the impacts that war can have because I'm older, I know people who have been there, but also because technology has brought the impacts in front of my face in high definition. Any given day you can turn on BBC or Al Jezeera or even The National and see video of dead bodies and devastated families in Syria or elsewhere.

Margaret Thatcher spoke later of the wrenching decision to go to war with Argentina. It was a difficult decision for her, but if you're unwilling to defend your land, even small islands populated mostly by sheep, then you've lost much of your legitimacy as a nation. It's as good a reason to go to war as I can think.

But the world has changed and I don't think we'll see another war like that again. There will be plenty of wars .. just none as simple and noble. Unless .. perhaps .. Denmark decides to lay claim to Hans Island.

11 Japan 11

Found this picture on the 'net. Thought I might share...

Click to see full size.

Artist's explanation:

Tsunami project: cfsl.net/tsunami
If this art is chosen, this will be sell in auctions (August 30, 2011, Arludik gallery, Paris) -> 100 % will be reversed to GIVE2ASIA.

Explanations on symbolic details:
+Blood on her breast symbolizes Japan
+A flower of hope is growing on her kimono
+I was inspired by Tsunami wave by the artist Hokusai, well known piece
+the golden sky behind the grey skies in the upper part of the picture, symbolizes hope.

With all the coverage of the problems at the Fukushima nuclear power plant, you ought to remember that the tsunami had the greatest impact, and still does. Over 12,000 dead and 15,000 missing from the earth quake and tsunami.* Fukushima: 0 dead and 0 missing. Possibly the greatest tragedy about Fukushima is that it's diverting attention away from the real tragedy.

*source: BBC

Wikileak: we're all going to die!

I question the public good that comes from revealing that a U.S. diplomat referred to Kim Jong-Il as a "flabby old chap". It could have been worse, mind you. Like maybe "crazy near-sighted dwarf" or something like that. I'm sure all diplomats do it, but mostly only the American ones (oh those rude Americans) are being exposed by Wikileaks , which is problematic for the U.S.

Nevertheless, there is some interesting stuff in there, like the fact that Israel is going to declare war against Iran in the next month. It's true! See:

Ehud Barak, Israel's defence minister, told American congressmen in June 2009 there was a window of "between six and 18 months from now in which stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons might still be viable".

Let's see ... June 2009 plus 18 months is ... December 2010! Fasten your seat belts boys and girls, there's gonna be a big ol' dust-up in the middle east! Well, another big ol' dust-up.

Other cables indicated that Iran was getting missile parts from North Korea via China. Both former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and current SoS Hillary Clinton have repeatedly urged China to stop the shipments, and have done so with complete futility. This just impresses on the reader how powerless the U.S. has become in the world in some respects. The U.S. has absolutely no leverage with China.

When you put these and other cables together a picture develops of a complicated situation where China is helping to arm Iran, and the U.S. is helping to arm Israel, and the two are on a deadly collision course. And that's just the start of it. Dozens of other countries are involved in one way or another.

Maybe there is a noble purpose in releasing all of these documents, but I think most people would probably be better off living in blissful ignorance. From now on it's nothing but reality TV and YouTube for me. What channel is Jersey Shore on?

Frank for President! .. and other Friday stuff

It turns out that there's more than one election going on in these parts. On June 10 my half-blood buddies will be able to go out and vote for President! David Chartrand is running for re-election, as are two other folks: Frank Godon and Robert Nolin. I'm pulling for Frank, who's returning from a stint in Russia teaching English. If I'm not mistaken, Darcey of Dust My Broom fame is part of his campaign team. Also see his Facebook page.

Cybersmoke is calling for more fiscal responsibility from the MMF.

***

I know many of you spend hours sitting around and wondering "why can't I find a blog about poutine?" Well, your wondering has been answered.

***

I haven't done my Friday video in a while, but here's one for you from Winnipeg break-core musician Aaron Funk, a.k.a. Venetian Snares. Turn this up LOUD. Yes, especially if you're at the office.

Of his many albums, one is called Winnipeg is a Frozen Shithole, and features songs like "Die Winnipeg Die Die Die Fuckers Die".

I'm sure he means that in a nice way.

Devil's advocate on climate change

The Climate Research Unit scientists were right to fudge their climate change studies.

The cooked data, the exaggerated results, the black-listed dissenters, and the general bastardization of scientific process: it is all justifiable. In fact, it is essential.

The problem of global pollution and climate change is subject to something that economists call the Tragedy of the Commons. If the global climate were to go to shit, all nations would suffer. However, no one nation can solve the problem unilaterally, and attempting to do so would impart economic hardship on that nation. A collaborative effort is required involving all nations. If country Z refuses to participate, then country Y will as well, so as not to be at a competitive disadvantage. If Y does not participate than neither will X, and so on.

Thus you need all nations on board, and you're not going to get all those politicians in line with wishy-washy results, or "objective peer review", or "conflicting opinions" that self-interested leaders can latch on to as an excuse not to participate.

Furthermore, we all know how these international planning sessions go: leaders go in talking about a certain objective; after all the bickering and nattering they walk away with an agreement for 1/10th of that objective; and when it comes time to put the rubber to the road they may actually accomplish 1/10th of what they agreed to. So if you need to reduce emissions by a trillion tons to save the planet, then you have to tell everybody that they need to reduce emissions by 100 trillions tons. If oceans are going to rise by 6 inches, you tell them that they're rising by 50 feet. That's how it works. And if some pain-in-the-ass scientists say "Hey wait a minute, our results show ..." then you have to shut those fuckers up ASAP before they ruin everything.

Alas, some thieving thruthers who obviously don't have the best interests of the planet in mind have exposed the ruse, and as a result the climate negotiations in Copenhagen are doomed to fail. And because of that, we are all doomed.

Sigh...