Jordan O'Connor
July 5th, 2006

The other day I was listening to music and thinking about life. As I listened I drifted into a timeless calm, a wondrous peaceful place where things felt whole, then suddenly, as if unexpectedly rocked in a small boat, my mind saw the reality it left behind and yelled – “What the hell happened!”

Everyday unreasonable things happen, unreasonable things that we pretend are reasonable, which I would argue are still “unreasonable.” For some reason we presume that reason is an absolute; however, as my grade 8 teacher – Mr. Schooler – said, “We (humans) do make reason after all.” You could say that we’re like children playing teatime and as fun as it may well be, there is no tea in the cup. Rather, it is our belief, our imagination that fills the cup. Thus, following my analogy, there is no “reason” in the cup other than what we place in the cup. Of course some existentialists and Buddhists might say there is no cup at all, to which I reply, well if that’s true what’s holding my imaginary tea?

The question becomes, should we not demand more of ourselves than imagined reason? Reason that we, to a great extent, create out of a desire for convenience than because it is right, good or true?

Well than, what is it that is so unreasonable? One thing that disturbs me is the direction we are taking with globalization. Why is it unreasonable? It is unreasonable to impose a freedom on someone with the expectation they will simply and quickly embrace it. Furthermore it is unreasonable to sell globalization as this beautiful idea, a utopia of the common good, yet lack the tact and fervor to do what needs to be done to achieve true equality. To be more blunt, we should actually mark the success of globalization by the lives – all lives – that it benefits. However, there is a divide, as there has been throughout history, between the have and have-nots, conquer and the conquered, white and black, and so forth.  This double standard takes shape in many different ways, which, perhaps, is why we can so easily dismiss it.

Globalization:
On the economic front, one such double standard takes place in the form of tariffs. For instance UK, USA, and Canada provide subsidies to their farmers however, other “developing” countries do not have this “freedom.” This “freedom” is taken away and/or restricted by the mandate of the IMF or World Bank. In short, in order for a country to receive money from the World Band and/or the International Monetary Fund there is a set of conditions that must be meet. The conditions may vary but what it amounts to is the bank gaining social control through economic measures, thus the culture and its people are often trapped in dismal scenarios that send countries in downward spirals. 

It is strange that a bank would take such an interest in culture and society, remodeling it and so forth. I didn’t realize that banks had such a depth of knowledge of peoples and cultures all around the world. My bank doesn’t even know who I am!  It is argued that such a protocol, such a “hands on” approach, on the part of the banks, is justified since it is in the interest of the bank and its investors to have the loan repaid. However, this is not completely true.  No right-minded organization or individual would give a loan with conditions that literally choke-off the ability of the citizenry to get clean water, a loaf of bread, employment etc., unless the goal wasn’t to be paid back. No, not unless there was something else going on here.

If for a moment we think on a more personal micro level, our day today level. And in thinking about our debt and paying of that debt we may be better able to piece together a motive when it comes to the paying back of monies on a macro level.

So… me and debt

The only time I’ve seen an organization want the money back “no matter what” was when it went to collection, which means the debt was sold. Prior to that the interested party was content to collect the interest on the debt indefinitely and even increase my credit limit, as long as I made the minimum monthly interest payments. (But if all I could afford to pay was the interest on my debt why would the credit card company extend my credit?) Forgetting this for a moment, there is a different goal when you have defaulted and your debt has been sold to a debt collector. The job is to get the money back as aggressively as possible. It is irrelevant if the methodology actually limits your effectiveness to pay down your debt. Rather, this debt, more than anything else - rent, food, etc., - must be paid back. I will say that in my limited experience I was amazed at the contempt with which I was treated. I had cross an invisible social line that was also the line, which granted me dignity and respect. There was a distinct feeling that I had brought this on myself and as such I had left my rights behind, furthermore there was no longer any need to think of me a human. In fact, I was yelled at over the phone, when I tried to explain my circumstance she yelled “I DON”T CARE.” The question is: why is our financial status a measure of how much we need to care about someone and how much they need to care about us? Money is love. Money is status – we’ve all seen Scarface.

Getting back to the macro level, and what countries have to face. What these loan conditions include is the privatization of nationalized programs, like healthcare, water, electricity and other infrastructure. Tariff reduction and/or elimination, which often means that a nations agriculture industry is undercut and as such cannot compete with foreign trade of the same goods formerly made at home. There is also the devaluation of the nation’s currency, since this will entice trade. What this amounts to is the “developing” countries are cutoff at the knees, not being able to utilize their agricultural industry as a means of generating competitive exports, while the devaluation of there currency can mean an inflation rate sending the cost of a loaf of bread up 500% or more. And by privatizing the nationalized services such as water and electricity new fees and costs are introduced which further burdens the citizens. If you aren’t able to sell your goods then you can’t pay for these serves and down the spiral we go. In short, the “developed” nations are able to stack the deck in favor of their own broader interests. 

Remember the selling point of globalization: that we can elevate the economy of developing countries through trade? And in so doing we will have more friends in the world, more equal partners… the world will be safer.  Contrary to this, what we have seen is the stark contrast between the sales pitch and the item being sold. Clearly the door swings one way and it favors the rich.

But why do we let this happen? How did we let it get to this point? How did we accept what is so unreasonable as reasonable? I know I, for years, believed the dream of a “globalized” world. I wanted to believe that globalization would give us influence in countries where human atrocities took place, countries where inequality formed the day-to-day of life.  I wanted to believe that the “haves” could help the “have-nots” and that freedom for one was predicated on the belief that freedom can only be meaningful if we have freedom for all. But this is a fantasy a bright dream turned to dark; where our greed lurks, where our desire betrays us, where our paranoia tells us we have to fight! The ad for globalization has as little to do with the global good, as McDonalds has to do with health.   

Globalization is the brutal transition from a world of nations to a world of corporations. Such brutal divides, such painful transitions, litter our history. The Industrial Age or the “discovery” of the Americas – which had been “discovered” by the indigenous peoples, transitions from slave based economies – which some would argue globalization is, as well as many other conquests. What these actions – and many more - have in common is violence; they are acts of war; acts of transgression. War provides the bullet of submission – the bullet of the reasonable-unreasonable, removing policy from discourse and putting it into brutal acts. War provides a means of galvanizing the population to fight, whether it’s against the “terror that lurks” or, formerly, the evil red communist. In either case, as long as we have the enemy we can hate and fear, we can be satisfied and feel justified that the war is just, even if the evidence to go to war is non-existent or unreasonable – even if the teacup is empty! Because it is the idea that justifies our actions, because it is the belief that we are doing right in the eyes of a god, we choose and are able to choose to martyr ourselves. However, the argument for war is based upon the fantasy of heroics and an life, thus it is absolutely essential that this idea, that war remains heroic, that we can sit with God, that god is with us, and that we are heroes for going to war for God, thus God is with us and is proud of us, respects us, appreciates us, as so we “serve” God. Hence, God becomes the justification for war and although I am not religious it has always struck me that people of “faith” can easily reconcile the love of god with the hate of humanity.    

War:
There are many ways to skin a cat, as the saying goes – as troubling a saying as it is - and there are many more ways to justify war. In Canada, there is the unreasonable trend by the Canadian government to intimidate individuals who want to debate, study, and establish exit strategies and “measures for success” for the war in Afghanistan. There is certain paranoia within some political circles, believing that talking about military actions will negate the importance of the sacrifice soldiers makes and as such we are disrespecting the awesome sacrifice these soldiers continue to make. This is something I have grown accustomed to within the sphere of American politics; however, it is something we are now finding at our own little 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue here in Canada.

Selective Memory

It is strange and shocking to think that only 3 years after the invasion of a country (Iraq)—an invasion set in motion, justified as a “preventive” war with the function of getting the WMDs, that we would say: we can’t talk about exit strategies or measures of success or anything because to talk about the war, to talk about killing and being killed in war is an egregious, not to mention disrespectful, act. Remember, this is “preventive war,” which “secures” us here at home and abroad has missed on every one of its goals. This is precisely why talking about the war is so undesirable, since it would demonstrate the failings on the part of governments to truly lead through war. Isn’t it egregiously and unrepentantly disrespectful to send solders to a battle based upon, at best, misguided intelligence, or at worse, lies?

The fact that Canadian and American, as well as other governments wanted to do something after the horror of 9-11 is obvious, however, we the people were manipulated and intimidated. As a Canadian I thought that the war was the wrong decision, however, I thought it was unavoidable. As a result, the Americans were given only one way to address the attacks of 911. Tragically, many Americans who doubted the war expansion to Iraq were told they were unpatriotic to question the validity of such an act and as such many were too afraid to speak or even think. Ask yourself this: if questions about Afghanistan and Iraq are answered democratically and openly and there is no bias or attempt to curtail the answers, then there is no need to question anyone’s patriotism. It is only necessary to doubt the patriotism of an individual if one is unable to address the questions asked. All forms of extremism end in tyranny, which is a heightened form of irrationality, and to such a person – the tyrants – the “discussion” itself is the enemy. To question the war is to be an evil Liberal and if the prevalent social myth is that Liberals are weak then they too, justifiably so, must be eliminated. Thus, it doesn’t matter if you are going to war with no real evidence, or if you are limiting the ability of certain portions of the population to vote it is all justifiable because it is all in the name of freedom. 

This has been the fatal flaw in trying to understand both sides of the debate. The left and the right don’t see that each side feels itself to be doing right and can’t see the underpinning of their beliefs and how they affect there decision making process. There is a subjective quality to the truth and to the facts, this is what Stephen Colbert of the Colbert Report refers to a ‘truthiness” which is a truth that isn’t factually correct but just the same feels true. 

Our judgment and assessment of Iraq and Afghanistan has been so far off mark it is shocking. Not talking and not understanding allows for a continuation of military strategies that have landed us in an escalating war, one which weakens our international position, letting countries like Iran and North Korea push toward international conflicts, as well as increasing the overall paranoia of all peoples of the world. Not to mention another genocide is taking place and we are not there…again. So how is not talking going to help us this time?

Past Wars:

Coming from an Irish/English Canadian background, with a Grandfather who fought in WWI and uncles who fought in WWII and Korea, I think about them and war a lot. I wonder why they joined the army. Such men had a variety of reasons for joining the military but surely none of them could have every truly known what such a sacrifice would mean.

If we think about the nights these soldiers of battles long since past lie awake screaming, covered in a sweat; if we remember that some soldiers never find the words for what they have experienced in war and carry within them horrors only understood in the context of human damnation and as such live their life buried alive. And if we remember that each solder that does not return, who is killed in foreign fields or at home, represents the end of a family line that could have created hundreds of lives, and if we remember the “other side” and the soldiers and civilians all lost in war, if we think about all of this and more we should want to better understand what such a loss truly means. 15 million people were killed in WWI. 55 million people were killed in WWII. Almost 3 million people were killed in the Korean War. A million and a half people were killed in the Soviet-Afghan war. Another 3 million or more were killed during the Vietnam War.  How could anyone have raised arms again?  I often think if my grandfather had been killed in WWI, as so many others had been, I would not be here today and there are so many who are not here today.

As an aside, one of the High Schools I went to in Ottawa opened in 1908. This was unique to my experience because in previous schools, when we had observed Remembrance Day ceremonies, we never heard the names of those who had been killed in battle. However, at Ottawa Tech, the names of former students who had died in war were read. This sent a chill went down my spine and still does today. It could have been me, a classmate, a friend a best friend. I thought about my friends and I imagined all of us disappearing, I saw the kids that some of us now have, never being born, the growth we made and the changes we underwent as our experiences grew, not happening. In short I saw the film of the lives we have lived thus far corrode and turn to dust. What one bullet, in one battle, 90 years ago could have meant is unfathomable. We cannot, nor should not, in my estimation, stop ourselves from thinking about the significance of each roadside bomb and what it means throughout the echoes of time, as we look at ourselves in the mirror and imagine ourselves vanishing. Each day bullets and bombs change the future by taking it way from so many.  

The loss in war is boundless and it is not a loss that we can sum up or cover-up with heroic words, it is something that we need to meditate on everyday. Scrupulous attention must be paid to ones character and integrity for only the politically biased can sidestep the veracious destructive appetite of war for immediate, politically expedient, proposes. Furthermore, someone who masks war in mythic terminology - or worse Top Gun terminology - acts without the full weight of a mature consciousness, which only compounds the tragedy.  

Hear no evil…

When our prime minister attempts to hush people, by talking about the sacrifice of our troops and how we need to honor them by not talking about what they are doing in this war, and when I hear military commanders applauding his statements I am reminded that it is always the people behind desks who decide the fate of the men and women in the battlefield. This distance is necessary for the kind of detached perspective that politicians and certain military personal have in regards to war. For them there are broader political battles to be won and as much as this is true, it precisely this confusion – the confusion between the battles fought by those behind the desk in the political sphere, and those fought to the death in the field – which leads us to naïve and wrong choices in war.  Then we find ourselves in a quagmire, the results of which can be seen in Vietnam War.  Today, nowhere is this clearer than when the president of the United States redefined the reason for going to war from behind his desk, yet in the field it has remained basically the same.

“The roadside bomb isn’t against democracy” one man says to the other, “it’s to protect our weapons of mass destruction – that I made at home.” “No” the man yells, “it’s to protect oil…. Wait, what was the first thing you said?”

If staying uninvolved, if not talking about the future, not planning for anyone of a number of scenarios in war is what we as Canadians need to do in war, than being a dead-beat-dad must be the ultimate act of fatherhood.

There is simply no question that any soldier who dies in battle, regardless of how screwed-up the decision making process may have been, s/he should get the highest honor, no question! This should be extended to the soldiers who are persecuted by the military, the men and woman who “lose it” in battle. No soldier left behind should mean just that. That said the assumption of many politicians, that we are disrespecting the soldier’s sacrifice by questioning the war (and also a variety of people on Fox News), illustrates something rather sinister and highly questionable about the politician’s psyche? Does the politician think that his or her decision is on par with the soldier’s sacrifice, that the politician plays some kind equivocal role? If so, this is untrue, egotistical and upsetting. We can honor soldiers on different sides of a war, in battles long since ended because we as humans can admire and profoundly respect the individual who gives their life. Life is the one thing we have and as such it is the one thing we should die to protect – human sovereignty.

To be clear, I don’t make these points as a pacifist, since I think there are policy changes here in Canada that could be made if we wanted to expand our military presence to both Afghanistan and send troops, in force, to Darfur. We could extend the tour length of the troops in Afghanistan from 6 months to a year, which would free up troops that go into Darfur; perhaps this is something that could be discussed in Parliament? I also agree with increased military spending that further enables the mobility of Canadian Forces. I believe that Canada has an opportunity to be a peacekeeper again and should embrace this chance.

Killing for the flag?
The death of soldiers and civilians in war, too often becomes political. The justification on the part government is often a matter of patriotism (flags) and religion (god) and if those don’t work, silence (to talk about it is unpatriotic and ungodly.)

Two Kinds of Democracy:
There is no reason in the teacup and the emperor is not wearing a single stitch of clothing. Adopting a “hear no evil, see not evil, speak no evil” attitude won’t work. But there is only one reason why a government would withhold information and it is because, fundamentally, there are two kinds of democracy. There is the democracy wherein all is made public and the prevailing feeling is the people can well handle whatever is placed in front of them and then there is the other form where we say that “people don’t want to know, don’t care, are cynical, can’t understand”, etc., and the feeling is… “You can’t handle the truth!” Because we don’t think people can handle the truth, secrecy is simply a measure of protection and as such it is patriotic to hide the truth – how’s that for reasonable? What we have to ask our selves is: what democracy do we live in and what democracy do we want to live in?

top