Against the Fouad Boutros Highway in Lebanon


The Association for the Preservation of Lebanese Heritage opposes the proposed Fouad Boutros Highway that would divide and expose a corner of Lebanon known for its serenity.

Like most things modern, this project seems to exhibit a pathological need to disrupt anything that is not already blighted with the same noise, pollution, crowding and manic disorganization as everything else.

The APLH statement is below:

The proposed Fouad Boutros Highway will not reduce traffic. Instead, it will redirect the traffic from Karantina into the ABC tunnel.

This change will both overburden the ABC tunnel with more traffic than it can handle and choke Ashrafieh with more exhaust and noise pollution.

The civil coalition of which APLH is part promposes the Fouad Boutros Park as an alternative. This plan will avoid vandalizing Ashrafieh with noise and pollution, and instead will:

  1. Cost much less.
  2. Boost tourism in Ashrafieh heritage neighborhoods
  3. Keep traffic and pollution away from Ashrafieh
  4. Increase greenery in the heart of Ashrafieh
  5. Keep small businesses unharmed by the highway
  6. Preserve the last heritage buildings in Ashrafieh
  7. and allow their restoration with the budget surplus

If we keep fighting traffic with more highways, all of Lebanon will suffocate under asphalt. Already we see the consquences of too much asphalt: winter has not showed up for the first time in decades, perhaps centuries; there is not enough natural growth to provoke water evaporation, condensation and precipitation (rain).

The DESERT is only a few paces away, and the more asphalt we create, the faster we DESERTIFY Lebanon. Act now. Yes to nature and heritage, NO to useless highways which will pollute Lebanese neighborhoods.

Tags: , ,

4 Responses to “Against the Fouad Boutros Highway in Lebanon”

  1. josef H says:

    Cant thank you enough, Brett, for the valuable coverage.
    Our regards, on behalf of the APLH and all Beirutis who are mobilizing against this harebrained project.



  2. LoreTek says:

    If modern projects and otherwise “city building” were autonomous or organic, its spread would almost look like acts of jealousy, rather than natural growth.

    However, since the plans were made by a committee or consensus I’m sure they are “logical”…

    This seems to be another great duality, if you will. One that digs up feelings of contempt from me.

    Liberalism will use anything rational it can possibly muster to “prove” a course of action. (By branching the highway it will, in fact, cut down on traffic of the first road). But by that same coin they know that their emotion or drive can never, ever be “proven” in that same way, it can’t be a fact, and thus can never be questioned.

    Don’t like that nice neighborhood over there that casts a shadow on your EO housing? I’m sure there is “a logical reason we can find” to run a new civil road right through the biggest yard.

    Classically, this is called applied science, or engineering in this case. But Classically, you were reversing science to apply to an actual threatening problem with effects felt in the real world by applying old observations to find a solution (the development of penicillin during WWII for example).

    Today we are literally taught to “brainstorm” problems, not to observe them. Then find ways to make an experiment for the problem and finally come up with an innovative solution. However, “finding problems” in this manner, you are not somehow discovering issues we didn’t know about, you are simply finding gaps in the market for them, period. This is what you go to university today to learn how to do. They’ll never tell you that though.

    In other words, make something up, design an experiment that proves it’s a problem, invent something that’s not on the market (presumably for a company), “market” it – shape your data into an infographic – , sell.

    The only thing that can be looked at are the facts, they say. We have this problem – traffic – and we have this amazing solution – build a road through your house – if you don’t want our solution then you must want the problem – *spreads the word that you are causing the traffic*.

    This method is almost magical. First it separates their way as the only alternative to the problem, then it separates you (or a group) as the only cause, because by their logic the problem could be non-existent if you didn’t stop them, so the original problem is your “fault”, and since only facts are being looked at and their emotion cannot be proven scientifically – nor by observation – that cannot be named their intent.

    The magic is, the actual causation disappears from question, never to be brought up. If you do, it will swiftly be written off as a defensive ploy to deflect the “fact” that you are standing in their way or they will tie in the “fact” that you are just a conservative trying to preserve the status quo (nature, heritage ect) for yourself – same goes for questioning if emotion or jealousy is their motivation. This is a form of heresy as individual emotional drive is almost divine.

    As an aside, I believe that this notion of individual emotion being divine will be at the root of the famed good vs evil split or new world religion, and will bring about a massive inquisition type event where liberalism will finally mate individualism, emotion, and violence to remove the conservative road block in a way that billions will feel they are doing the right thing.

    This is “hard” science today. In a mock med school interview I was expressly told that when asked which fields I thought were hard science vs soft science I am to say “all science is hard science because all science follows the ‘scientific method’ “. If I say anything else I won’t get in.

    All the pieces are in place. 1.) The scientific method has been reborn as modern applied science with observational science dubbed “basic science” and discarded as observation cannot prove causality. 2.) All remaining science is hard science and carries the same weight 3.) We are indoctrinated into thinking Individualism and intent are above reality 4.) Hard science is used to prove an individual’s intent is reasoned and not emotional 5.) The magic method can be used to easily “market” the solution to any crowd and to crown an enemy. 6.) If steps 1-3 are followed in a society, steps 4 and 5 can be used to do whatever the experimenter/social scientist/socialist wants, even if it’s an unobservable, individual or emotional based, jealousy-driven “problem” with a solution aimed specifically at a targeted enemy; as long as 1-3 hold, step 4 will be immune from question and 5 can be used to sway the crowd (voters).

    All that seems to be left is to find an all-encompassing or meta-problem that is causing all the other perceived problems tirelessly outlined by liberalism, devise an experiment to prove it, innovate a solution, and market it to the voters to enact it into law. Right now the most influential people, Bill Gates, Oprah, T.E.D, ect, are all clamoring about overpopulation, but I don’t think that it’s the classic overpopulation that conservatives talk about. And something tells me that the above average, sub-elite, or otherwise naturally talented people traditionally opposed to the socialist ideals of empowering/raising the mediocre won’t like their innovative solution.

  3. earth rapists says:

    They wish to rape the soil, destroy the life, smash anything which does not affirm mighty Man and his divine Intellect. We have made ourselves into God and it has turned us into dickheads.

  4. EnoughAlready says:

    Wow! It is truly amazing how all the progress-monkeys just cannot, under any circumstances, leave well enough alone!

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>