Showing posts with label Frances. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Frances. Show all posts

Saturday, 11 August 2018

Post 231--Bolan's Gangsters (1)



Gangsters are still on my mind from the last post. No surprise, for they are often on my mind, especially when I read the newspapers. My favourite daily, The Vancouver Sun, has a columnist who covers the gangster front—Kim Bolan. Though I do not always agree with her and at one time in an email she called me something close to “idiot”—or so I felt about it, but I appreciate her writings and fail to read her column only if I have a bad day and don’t read the paper at all.

In this crazy world of litigation at the slightest instigation at all, I want to make sure no one accuses me of claiming Bolan own or controls gangs. These gangs are not Bolan's. Titles are meant to draw people's attention and I hope this one does.

Kim is not the only author to write on gangs and not all her articles are in the Vancouver Sun.  So, some of the articles linked here are by reporters instead of Kim the columnist, like Nick Eagland and Matt Robinson; some are in other papers like The Province. All that sort of information is clearly marked below.

But before I go further, I am reminded of the introductory paragraph at the heading of this blog.  There I explain that the title of this blog, “My World—My Neighbour,” is a summary of Jesus’ teaching that everyone in this world is my neighbour, whom I have to love, care for and about. How can I square this with the rather rough attitude I am displaying towards gangsters and their culture of violence and money?  Perhaps you’ve already wondered about that. Perhaps you even accuse me of contradictions or, worse, of hypocrisy. I am bringing this up at this point to let you know I am aware of this issue. I plan to address it before long. In the meantime, feel free to write me about it and help me think it through. 

Returning to Kim, sometimes her column is the only one I read. My wife, Fran or Frances (she prefers the short version; I, the longer), often cuts out articles for me if she knows I’m interested and I don’t have the time.  Bolan’s articles never escape Fran’s scissors. So, they are piling up in a box along with others.  But today is their day. I’m going to treat you to some of Bolan’s brain waves by means of links to some of her articles. Note well:  some, not all. And note also that, unless indicated otherwise, the dates behind the titles are of the Vancouver Sun.

As you read, check on the commonalities of these stories. What do they have in common?  What marks their culture?  And what of their pleas in court?  What are they asking?

This is only the beginning. I won’t bore you with too many data all at once, but I do intend to bring you more of this stuff. This is serious and only regularly reading these items, story after story, will it sink into your brain, heart and emotions. Allow it do that to you over time, and I think you will find your indignation and anger growing as you go till finally you may demand radical changes in the way these hoodlums are treated by the justice system. At the end you may well come to ask who are the most responsible for creating this violence and chaos—the gangsters themselves or the nation’s justice system. So, you will be thrown a lot of ugly stories as well as pleas for mercy and questions. You’ve got work coming up! 


Kim Bolan, “Police monitor rise of more puppet clubs.”  Hells Angels allegedly pulling the strings of certain less-established bike gangs. July 23, 2018 (p. A3). https://www.google.ca/searchq=Kim+Bolan+police+monitor+rise+of+more+puppet+clubs&rlz=1C1AVNG_enCA658CA662&oq=Kim+Bolan++police+monitor+rise+of+more+puppet+clubs&aqs=chrome..69i57.25721j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Here you learn a lot about gang culture, including a hierarchy of clubs with Hells Angels at the very top. The ones lower down take the brunt of dangerous jobs. The motor cycling tours may seem like fun, but they are putting themselves AND their families at risk. There are serious consequences.  Police are monitoring them all carefully, making sure everyone is safe.  Why the police should be guarding these dumb wits against themselves is a big puzzle to me. Why should I pay taxes to protect those fools?    

Kim Bolan, “Real Scoop: Police concerned about rise of the HA puppets.”July 22, 2018. https://vancouversun.com/news/staff-blogs/real-scoop-police-concerned-about-rise-of-the-ha-puppets
An introduction to various gangs on the BC coast. 


Nick Eagland, “”’Wake Up Surrey’ pleads for help in tackling gang violence.” June 14, 2018 (p. A8).https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/surrey-residents-rise-against-violence-in-wake-of-shooting-deaths-of-two-teens?video_autoplay=true

Kim Bolan, “Firefighters’ biker club founder poses with Hells Angels.” Public safety minister calls the alleged association more than a bit disturbing. June 5, 2018 (p. A3). https://www.google.ca/searchq=kim+bolan+firefighters%27+biker+club+founder+posese+with+hells+angels&rlz=1C1AVNG_enCA658CA662&oq=kim+bolan+firefighters%27+biker+club+founder+posese+with+hells+angels&aqs=chrome..69i57.43481j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
The concern here is the penetration of gangsters into government agencies.

Kim Bolan, “Feds appeal immigration order freeing gunman.  Ministry objects to board decision to release gangster pending deportation.” April 26, 2018.  https://www.google.ca/searchq=kim+bolan+feds+appear+immigration+order+freeing+gunman&rlz=1C1AVNG_enCA658CA662&oq=kim+bolan+feds+appear+immigration+order+freeing+gunman&aqs=chrome..69i57.19521j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8


Kim Bolan,  “Guilty pleas expected in Bacon murder. Three men charged in 2011 gang shooting in front of Kelowna hotel reach plea bargain on lesser charges.” The Province,  April 22, 2018 (p. 4). https://www.google.ca/searchq=kim+bolan+guilty+please+expected+in+Bacon+case&rlz=1C1AVNG_enCA658CA662&oq=kim+bolan+guilty+please+expected+in+Bacon+case&aqs=chrome..69i57.24648j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8


Thursday, 30 July 2015

Blog 60--Contradictions and Inconsistencies: The Stuff of Life




I’ve been gone for a week, camping with daughter Cynthia and her family and some other friends. The group was great for socialization and the river-side facility was great—and free for us!  But in the latter half of July, you can expect warm weather, not so cold that you shiver and have to put on layer upon layer, especially when there is a camp fire ban due to extreme drought. We broke up camp and returned disappointed to the coast at Kent, near Seattle. But there the heat was so intense that camping was just as uncomfortable. We broke up camp again and returned home in Vancouver, disappointed, not to say disgusted. All of which is to explain the extra long time between posts.  

Blog 59 is full of contradictions and inconsistencies. I know these terms are not exactly synonyms, but I will kind of use them as such in this blog. Notice how imprecise that last sentence is?  When I wrote this post, it was Monday morning and I didn’t feel like forcing too much precision on myself. So our topic for today is just right—for me and, I hope you can live with it. 

It happens quite frequently that my wife (Fran) and I catch each other in contradictions, the term now including inconsistencies as well. We usually acknowledge it, but the conversation often leans toward a negative attitude towards such things. It seems more virtuous to be consistent, even though as years have taken their toll, we are becoming increasingly tolerant of contradiction. Is that natural with age?  Or is it the effect of post-
modernism on us? That we’re veering away from the demands of strict logic?

At any rate, the previous blog was full of it. I agree and disagree with Pete McMartin; same for the VS editorial. And then I reject both of their approaches for not going to the heart of the matter. I was fully aware of it and was good for letting it all stand. Sloppy thinking could be another reason I could add to the above paragraph. Combining “sloppy thinking” with “reason” is surely an example of the very thing I am talking about.

I am a graduate of Calvin Theological Seminary (CTS) in Grand Rapids (MI, USA). It is a good seminary and I am proud of having graduated there (1965). I have given quite a detailed report on my three years there in our memoirs (Every Square Inch: A Missionary Memoir, vol. 1, chapter 12-- <www.Social Theology. com >. Once there,turn to the first entry on the Boeriana page.)

In terms of our subject for today, I wrote about how bored I would occasionally be in Systematic Theology (ST) classes. Systems are usually logically coherent entities. So, in these ST lectures the point was to fit the Bible and theology into neat logically consistent boxes. The result gave a static feeling. Everything stood still. Even God came out as a static being that is fully consistent with Himself, including even that most “illogical” construct of the Trinity. Sometimes I would get so tired of it, I would play hooky for a few days and spend my time reading other theologians. I especially liked the writings of professor Gerrit Berkouwer of the Free University of Amsterdam for the contrast between him and my CTS profs precisely because Berkhouwer did not construct such tight logical boxes; he was more open. 

Neither does God fit into our logical boxes. The profs did  acknowledge that when it came to issues of election/reprobation vs human responsibility. They had inherited that difficult conundrum from childhood and had grown up being comfortable with it. But somehow that mostly static view of God did not cut it for me.  Of course, I am talking the 1960s. I suspect that the atmosphere at CTS has changed like everything else in this world.

The emphasis at that time at least was on a God who tolerates only truth, truth being at least partially defined as logically consistent statements and intolerance for what we might call “gray” statements over against the plain black and white stuff.  I loved and still love the stories in the Bible that challenge that kind of static God in favour of a more fluid one. There is the story of the midwives who lied to Pharaoh in order to save the baby boys of the Israelites, but whom God blessed because of their courage (Exodus 1:15-22). Then there is the story of Samuel’s anointing David to be the next king. Samuel objected to God that Saul, the current king, would kill him for what amounted to a coup. Then God instructed Samuel to give a false reason for his coming to David’s town (I Samuel 16:1-3). God is described as repenting or regretting things He had done (Genesis 6:6-7; Exodus 32:14; Judges 2:18; I Samuel 15:11, etc.). At the same time, we also read in I Samuel 15:29 that God “does not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind.” So, a very fluid picture of God under certain circumstances, though still faithful and trustworthy with respect to His people. 

So, I do not apologize for the occasional contradiction in my own life, including those in Blog 59.

The French philosopher Rene Descartes (1596-1650) coined the famous Latin phrase “Cogito, ergo sum,” meaning, “I think; therefore I am.”  It expressed the idea current among philosophers at that time—and still for some ordinary folk even today—that the essence of a human being lay in his rationality, his mind. If you know something—and that means you are thinking, you have a mind-- well, then you must be a human being. Something like the touristy trend of thought, “It’s three p.m.; hence this must be Victoria.” Taking off from there and following a radically dangerous step into the almost forgotten country of Latin, I would like to suggest, “Contradicio; ergo sum,” hopefully meaning something like “I contradict; therefore I am.” It does not define my essence, but it does make me feel just a bit more comfortable. At least, it gives me a vague permission to contradict myself—of sorts.