8pov

The world can certainly do better than this. Here's why.

Monday, September 18

Question Period

Our government is debating many different topics today. Accountability, the gun registry, troop deployment in Afghanistan, softwood lumber, lobby positions of ex-government officials, and so on.

There is a scary parallel here. Today, we remember the shootings of Montreal. Today, we remember 4 more dead in Afghanistan. Today, we remember that this is a young government - a minority government - and that is evident today. The levels of passion being presented in the house are clear. Much has changed in Canada since the recess of the house in June. Furthermore, another confidence vote looms in the future.

The gun registry proved useless in the face of the shootings at Dawson College. Moreover, you can't legislate, nor necessarily prevent senseless people from wreaking senseless havoc. The debate over the gun registry, a political issue because of the efforts of "$133 M" in lobbying in support of the Conservatives ascent in government, may have to take a back seat to the demand for guns to be banned outright. Gun violence in Toronto, the deaths of 4 RCMP officers in Alberta, and now Montreal, may cause the public to question their assumptions. More cops on the street and stiffer penalties for violent offenders will not necessarily prevent these things from happening. They will only serve to make the survivors feel better for a while. Deterrence is insufficient in the face of incidence. The tools of these incidents must be removed.

The words in the House are forceful and clear. The past Liberal government is consistently referred to as being patently corrupt, that chapter being "one of the darkest" in Canadian history. In the words of Minister of Public Safety Stockwell Day, a "regime," echoing the English-language association with Saddam Hussein and the current battle against the Afghan Taliban regime.

The words are reminiscent of happenings elsewhere. With respect to the Canadian contingent in Afghanistan, the leaders of our nation - including our Ministers of National Defense and Foreign Affairs - are resolved to remain engaged in Afghanistan until "the job is done." Further echoes of the United States ring true here.

Paraphrasing, if Canadian forces leave Afghanistan before the insurgency is quashed, then the Taliban will return to power in that nation. Consequently, Afghanistan will certainly return to its former status of training ground for international terrorism, women and children will be subject to the harsh treatment of Taliban rule, and the world will be less safe for Canadians, Britons, Aussies, and Americans. We msut learn the lessons of 9/11.

Canada's forces are, allegedly, experiencing a disproportionate casualty rate in Afghanistan. According to a report from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, a member of the Canadian forces is "six times more likely" to die in Southern Afghanistan than an American armed forces is in Iraq. For a conflict that is not considered a war, as the conflict in Iraq is, but an exercise in security, counter-insurgecy, and nation-building, Afghanistan is proving a tall order for Canadian forces.

International conflict is mutating in a world that has changed since 1914. No longer are wars fought along clearly defined lines for the conquest of territory and exultation of ideology. The world changed again in 1949, wherein mutually assured destruction (MAD) rose as the only means tempering the superpowers resolve to annihilate one another. With the mutations of acts terrorism, and a war thereupon, the world is changing much faster now. Instead of states defining the course of policy, it is the static system that must respond to tiny but massively significant threats.

The lesson of 11|09|01 teaches nations that the price of freedom is vigilance. This vigilance is acted out in terms of military action abroad. The problem is, with violence practiced abroad, what is being done about the violence at home? It cannot be said, definitively, that one has nothing to do with the other. If vigilance is the sole lesson of 11|09|01 and acts of terror have ceased neither at home nor abroad in the five years hence, perhaps there is another lesson we missed.

The lesson that Afghanistan teaches us today is that violence begets more, and more efficient, violence. That 27 years in a cycle of violence tends to bring out violence in those it confronts. That people will do what they must to survive. No amount of military engagement can overwhelm the Afghan people. They are, in their own way, strong. No amount of outside interference, indoctrination, or industrialization will lead Afghanistan away from their core values -- from the history that binds them together as Afghans. No amount of progress will make them forget the past. The Canadian mission in Afghanistan must come to recognize this. To withdraw from military operations and shift, tactically, to a new approach.

The suicide bomber and the suicide shooter are kindred spirits. Each is disillusioned by the world he inhabits. Each one seeks release and absolution in death. Each seeks to inflict pain upon the world that has pained them. Each is produced in the same world we all inhabit.

Under extreme stress any person can become the unthinkable. The final lesson of any horrible event cannot simply be: "How are we to prevent this from happening again," it msut be "What in the world caused this to happen in the first place?"

Without this understanding it will happen again, and again, and again, and again...

Monday, September 11

5th Anniversary of 9/11 (Part II)

Je Me Souviens
Lest We Forget
Those who neglect the past are condemned to repeat it.

Anything I do say will be used against me. Labelled uncaring or overbearing or melodranatic or reactionary. An incitement to riot or revolution or otherwise counterprogressive.

Any move toward world change is held suspect in the light of this petrified New World Order. A post-9/11 world rife with terrorists, malcontents, upstarts, usurpers, and the like. A world in which four colours -- green, yellow, orange, and red -- relate how safe it is to go outside. Just say it, it's never safe to go outside. The world is no longer a safe place. Joke's on you, it never was.

They say that people who live in glass houses should never throw stones. I live in the world, and all I have are stones to throw. I say more here, online, than I do in the world because I have only stones to throw. Here, if I shatter your world -- the precious glass bubble you call home -- you have made the decision. If you're talking to me in the world, I will censor myself, finding out what you think and feel first before I tell you of the way things are.

The world has never been a safe place. Security, for all intents and purposes, is a farce. Not everyone can have a Secret Service detail to establish a perimeter about them to ensure that nothing bad will happen. Not everyone is trained in the ways of firearms, swordsmanship, or hand-to-hand combat. Not everyone is a lawyer, able to defend oneself from incursions by the law. Not everyone is a philosopher, able to argue their way out of coercion. Not everyone is a salesperson, able to see the deceptions that underscore the phrase caveat emptor. Not everyone is a healer, able to undo the harms we bring on others or ourselves. Not everyone is a teacher, fending off ignorance at each turn. It is for these reasons we must all rely on each other, it is in this that we build our security.

The world is no longer a safe place. Ironically, it never was. Attempts to make the world safer have only led to more insecurity. The events of five years ago are as possible today as they were then. What, then, of the security measures, programs, and initiatives instituted since that infamous day? All for naught. The mandate that brought the events of 11|9|01 to the world have not changed.

The climate of disparity and discord between the powers that be and the powers that would be has not changed. The command of dollars and nonsense has not changed. Education, understanding, and inclusivity has not changed. Regard for "others" has not changed. Value of human life has not changed. These words, my thoughts and suspicions and the creeping admission of rot within the world has not changed. I have changed. I control only myself. I no longer drive, I take the bus, ride my bike, and walk every day. Every now and again I bum a ride, reducing the footprint of the person sitting next to me. I've replaced all of my 60 W incandescent bulbs with 12 W fluorescents. I read more and watch TV less. What effect will changing myself have if I have no changes in others to show for it?

External forces continue to induce desire in the people whom I associate with. While I actively search within for what motivates me, the total command of external desire, a crushing tide of conformity, washes across the world.

Oft stated that everything changed that one day in September, it has only galvanized that there will be and ever shall be more of the same.

More oversight, government or otherwise.
More technology, to monitor and shape behaviour.
More disparity of wealth.
More advertising.
More commerce.
More fundamentalism.
More divisiveness.
More alienation.

With these things, maintaining artificial sense of balance, there will also be less.

Less hope that the future will be better.
Less food on the table.
Less autonomy and freedom.
Less opportunity for growth.
Less art and creativity.
Less caring.
Less new information.
Less transparency.
Less light.
Less change.

There are many victims to this reality, though none is so proud as to claim the mantle of victor. No-one will admit that, often, where there is oppression, the oppressors wear ties. Such admission is too familiar, structured as desirable. To strike against the monolithic "right" of progress, justified by the established powers, is self-destructive. Any
who can claim priveleige, the same priveleiges near universal among industrialized nations, are party to its justification. I include myself in this.

I admit that to change the world for the better I must be willing to concede much of what I have become accustomed to. As a Canadian, by virtue of geography, we are able to produce much of what we consume. Other nations are not as fortunate. I must also, then, be willing to support development in other parts of the world, providing access to that which I take for granted.

The space between the comfortable design of contemporary nations of priveleige and those of destitution and despair is so great that it ensures that there is no recourse against the great nations. "Others," and any rights guaranteed them, cannot overcome the insurmountable expanse. Only from above, from the higher echelon, can change be made in this world.

Understanding what they need, those "others," and not forcing change upon them. Power must be distributed in service of needs as they arise. the power that industrialized nations wield must shift from imposition upon "others" to operation in service of those "others." The former mandate has not worked these past sixty years. An inversion, shifting from force-feeding industrialization to underdeveloped nations to permitting them to grow and subsist by their own devices and natural evolution is a more stable mandate. The safety and security of the world may well hinge on this admission.

On this anniversary of immense destruction, an event replays in the minds eye for a moment. Each person remembers where he or she was when it happened. The event reverbates differently in each corner of the globe, having one effect among those sympathetic to America, another to those who stand against America. There are those to whom 11|9|01 has had no direct effect, though the side effects abound. Anniversaries such as this are many: Pearl Harbour Day (December 7), Hiroshima Day (August 6) and Nagasaki Day (August 9), Halifax Explosion Memorial (December 6), DRAVAW (also December 6), 7|7 Bombing London (July 7), Guy Fawkes Day (November 5), D-Day (June 6), and so on. The point is, each of these events ended (or in the case of Guy Fawkes, would have ended) in massive destruction and loss of human life. What verifiable effect each event has is only discernible in the lens of history. Each time one of the anniversaries passes without remembrance, without discernible effect, the loss of life incurred goes unrespected. Its historical impact unnoticed. Given time, all events admit of consequence. Nothing is trivial. In this -- a lesson, things do change, only if we recognize, accept, and incorporate understandings achieved therein.

Friday, September 8

5th Anniversary of 9/11 (Part I)

There are only three days left. Already, the tributes and documentaries and political posturing has begun for the fifth anniversarry of the most (insert adjective here) act of terrorism ever carried out on US soil.

This post is about this article on the BBC about an ABC TV movie that recounts the run up to 9/11. Members of the Clinton administration have strong reservations about the content of the film citing "factual errors." In their defense, ABC has offered this statement:

"For dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalised scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, and time compression," ABC said in its statement.

"We hope viewers will watch the entire broadcast of the finished film before forming an opinion about it."

Part I of fhe film - er, movie - will be released Sunday, and continued with part II Monday night.

I think that Mickey has gone too far this time.

Sure, we want to believe that the Disney-ified view of the world can come to pass. We want to believe that Prince Charming would never find his love but for glass slipper. Its OK Bambi, you're an orphan but tomorrow will be better. Aladdin and Jasmine talk like US, but Jafar is the embodiment of evil. The Knights Templar may killed millions in the Crusade and plundered billions (21st c. dollars) in treasure from the Middle East, but as long as the Declaration of Independence is preserved and the family name is upheld, revisions of history are A-OK.

But, to have the House of Mouse dictate history, with "fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, and time compression" on the anniversary of the tragedy they are redefining is a further example of American disdain for anything but their own mythology.

Calling upon the public, already searching for absolution, to recognize that a movie depicting 9/11 contains fiction is like asking kids to kick the tooth fairy's ass. Every American production that depicts 9/11 will be believed to be respectful of the dead and respectful of history.

Belief is nice, but not always reality. Contortions, mutations, and outright revision of history is no justification to support beliefs. Disney does an immense disservice to history teachers around the world with each of its creations.

I won't watch the film, I will look for the factual errors on iMDB, and then I will redouble my efforts to incite suspicion in any of the films Disney releases.

Saturday, September 2

Why I chose D.O.A.P.

I wanted to see this film for it's near-future exploration of a world that I have grown to know quite well. I did not read the entire description, there were 352 of them for me to get through in three hours, but I did read the following:

"As one might expect, Range is ultimately interested in addressing today's political issues through the lens of the future. Xenophobia, the hidden costs of war and the nature of civil liberties in a hyper-media age all come under the microscope. The film is never a personal attack on Bush; Range simply seeks to explore the potential consequences that might follow from the President's policies and actions.

"It is the very technique of D.O.A.P., finally, that poses the most haunting questions of all. Not only do we feel the authenticity of mass media imagery slipping away, but Range suggests that his manipulation is merely a more radical example of what we encounter every day."

Noah Cowan's description is floating around the 'net, causing a ruckus as it goes, but, what is there to be made of a film that no one has seen? The key word in the description, the one that got me hooked on this film as an idea, was xenophobia. The ruckus that is swirling, or will swirl until the film premieres on 10 September, is linked directly to this: fear of change and the unknown.

I agree with the official statement released by TIFF on 1 September.

"...a highly original film; a falsified history on what would be a tragic event. D.O.A.P addresses a wide array of contemporary issues including the loss of civil liberties, the ramifications of war, and ultimately critiques the overwhelming influence and manipulation of mass media...

"The Toronto International Film Festival is committed to the free expression of ideas and to engaging audiences in thoughtful discussion about issues of the day. D.O.A.P contributes meaningfully to the public discourse surrounding current social issues, demonstrates highly original storytelling techniques and utilizes innovative digital effects. The film is not exploitative in any way and treats what would certainly be a great tragedy respectfully and un-cynically."

And so, storm's a brewin'.

Is the president of the US in a particularly weak position for such a film to be released? Sure, his approval rating hasn't broken 50% since April of 2005. Political assassination is the more effective tool here. For him to leave office disgraced and the nation in a double (or octuple) pitfall may provide the lesson that American "leadership" needs. Will the film have any effect on Americans, with the exception of opening up a new avenue of Canada-bashing? Probably not. Most Americans can't point to Toronto on an unmarked map. Why should they care about anything but the immediate threat to the image of their leader?

Really, it's fiction. Fiction. The film that no-one has seen will have some kind of effect. If it's any good, it might go on TV. If it's no good, it'll be in a ten-dollar-store bargain bin fourteen years from now for $5 in the antiquated HD-DVD format. Talk about your cautionary tales.

The Drudge Report, and several blogs are weighing in. The Daily Mail has published this "What if?" scenario. When I started this article the count was 58 on Google for ""D.O.A.P."+"Death of a President"." By 10:00 (EDT) it'll be over a thousand. It's Saturday, there'll be a bunch of newspaper articles, it's had time to circulate... I am looking forward the the Ideas section of the Toronto Star on Sunday.

So what is left? Are we to contine to expect the worst in constructing our future or to hope for the best? The stringent order has favored the former. Perhaps it's time, Mr. President, to give the latter a shot -- so to speak.