2020s could be a rip-roaring good time

When my co-worker asked if I was excited about 2020, I almost forgot it was the end of a decade. I admit, it will be kind of cool to have two 20s in the year's title. I'll enjoy that, at least for the first few months. But as far as being excited? 

New Year’s Eve of 1999, now that was exciting. We weren’t sure if the world was going to end. As it turned out, the whole Y2K scare was a bit of a dud. My computer still booted up the next morning. 

I don’t think we have to worry about any major computer malfunctions this time, other than the fear of being hacked, having your personal information stolen, or forgetting your password. That’s normal. 

Technological advancements have become a hallmark of the last decade, perhaps the most prominent being the rise of the smart phone. The iPhone revolution has given us a new generation of kids that are dependent on an instant digital feed, a dependency that most of us “older people” never had growing up. 

I don’t consider myself old (hey, I'm no boomer), but we only got a computer when I was 10 – and other than word processing, it didn’t do much. I remember playing a lot in the bale stacks on our farm growing up. My town friends would play a lot in the bush around the railway tracks (I’m sure it was safe). We also pulled tire tubes behind snowmobiles at far too fast of speeds. 

Yes, there were video games, but Atari and Coleco Vision didn’t keep us from playing outside for long. They were our respite from the cold dark days of winter, but they didn’t have the engrossing effect of today’s life-like games. 

The last decade will have a lasting impact on our kids, but also on adults. It remains to be seen whether our fragile human brains can handle all the digital platforms that are being thrust upon us.  

Can we play together nicely, or will we rip one another apart through social shaming? Can we be ourselves, or do we need a photo-shopped image to show our Facebook friends? Can we be honest about loneliness and isolation, or do we need to break out of our man caves to admit that we need others? 

This past decade marked a new ministerial responsibility in the U.K.: Minister for Loneliness. What this tells us about our western society is damning, but I understand how it's come to this. 

We've left our social hubs, whether they be bowling clubs or churches, for time alone – sometimes of our own choice, but at times not. Our society seems driven towards independence and isolation. For those on the fringes, the elderly and socially challenged, it can be especially crippling. A man interviewed on the radio, who lives alone for much of the time in northern Saskatchewan, said he doesn’t feel any more isolated than when he lived in a city. “You can feel just as alone with thousands of people around you,” he said. 

I’m always amazed at the network of trust and connection among neighbours and relatives when I come home to the community where I grew up. It’s cliché to talk about small-town Saskatchewan this way, but everyone knows each other – their families, their habits, their problems. It may sound intrusive and lacking in privacy, but there’s a social safety net that doesn’t exist in most cities. 

This isn't to say we are on an inexorable trend towards isolation and meaningless in the 2020s. By contrast, we could regain so much as we pay more attention to the things we’ve taken for granted – friends, family, nature, even democracy. The protests in Hong Kong show how far people will go to take back the things they value. If we approach our challenges with the same fervor, the 2020s could be rip-roaring good time, just like the 1920s (remember those?) Or, at the very least, they could be better.

Even I can get excited about that.

Have yourself an Amazon-free Christmas

I’m amazed and afraid at the same time. 

Last week I ordered a product through Amazon that I couldn’t buy in stores, and it arrived at my home the next day.  

I realize this is nothing compared to the two-hour delivery that Amazon guarantees in some major cities. But for someone used to Canada Post taking five days to get a letter to my parents (we live in the same province), one-day delivery is like discovering insulin. 

Still, I’m scared. Is this for the ultimate good? 

A guy delivered the package in a mini-van; not even a big brown van. It looked like he was using his own family vehicle. Is this like Uber, where anyone can now deliver a parcel if they wish? 

We all know how Uber is doing... they haven’t turned a profit yet. And cab drivers are losing jobs because of it. Amazon is having a similar impact on retailers. They’re so convenient and cheap that physical stores are having trouble paying the rent. 

I’m all about supporting the local store, but in this day and age, what is the local store? There are a few, to be sure, but most are large American conglomerates. Do I stop clicking on Amazon to support the local Wal-Mart? I thought it would never come to this day... 

Amazon is an innovative company that is growing by the minute. Its president, Jeff Bezos, is the richest man in the world. His ex-wife, thanks to an amicable divorce, is now the third richest woman in the world.

The company has a stranglehold on the online retail world, and it’s growing by the second. From what I’ve read, its next goal is to control and own all shipping services. Already it’s expanded into online streaming including Amazon Video and Music. Your Prime membership can go a long way, if you’re into those things. 

It also sells listening – I mean, smart – devices that answer all your questions any time of the day. “Alexa, are you spying on me again?” These devices, while somewhat creepy, are a godsend for blind people who use them in their day-to-day lives. I know, I’m reaching here. But there’s got to be some greater good I can point to! 

Like with most new things that reduce human contact, I’m still uneasy. The self-checkouts in grocery stores are another appealing innovation, especially when cashiers are prone to scanning my jalapeno peppers as some rare Thai chili pepper at $10 a pound. But how many jobs will be lost because of them?

Should I be the person who willingly goes through a long winding line to maybe save a job? Is this similar to the Luddites who started burning their machinery in the early19th century? I get the sense I’d be swimming against the current.

But there are pockets of hope.

A 22-year-old university student recently told me she tries to buy locally whenever she can. We have an area in our city that caters to these kinds of people (I speak of them as if they’re lepers), and I appreciate that. It’s something I can and sometimes do, although the local goods tend to be highly specialized and at times “unique,” kind of like that sweater your great-aunt used to knit for you.  

What shocked me most, however, was when my millennial friend also said she’s scared to buy things online. In fact, she said she rarely buys things online. I nearly fell off my chair. 

In a strange way, this makes me more optimistic about the future. Maybe the next generation is thinking about things differently. Maybe there’s a resistance developing among those wide-eyed millennials who like their avocado toast and skinny lattes. They certainly can’t afford new homes. Might as well support the local economy. 

And while they're at it, they might just create a caring economy where technology serves not just the rich, but those in need. Technology and humans an live together, but people (and their jobs) must come first. As children of an impersonal digital age, the next generation may be the first to remind us.

On that hopeful note, Merry Christmas!

Afghanistan sounding more like Vietnam

In my wife’s home city in Ukraine, there’s a memorial for the fallen soldiers of the war in Afghanistan. If you weren’t aware, the USSR was involved in its own Vietnam from 1979-89, trying to overtake a tribal country that was willing to engage in prolonged guerilla warfare. 

The U.S. didn’t help the Soviet cause by arming Afghanistan rebels, including the likes of Osama bin Laden who would later found al-Qaeda – a fact most American leaders have conveniently forgotten. 

In a brief work term 10 years ago, I had the opportunity to work on a project that also commemorated soldiers who had died in Afghanistan. Only these were Canadians.  

I remember my co-worker lamenting the morbid nature of our work. We were digging up information on people whose lives had ended much too early. People whose families were left behind – children who would never see their fathers and mothers again.  

I also remember attending an information session a few years earlier, put on by the Department of National Defense, about how Canada was making great progress in Afghanistan. They explained how they were working with communities to build trust, and making inroads through what is known as soft power.  

After our withdrawal in 2014, I often wondered what was the result of this well-intentioned work. According to Pat Stogran, a former commander in Afghanistan, the impact, if any, was temporary. When he returned to Afghanistan in 2010, he said the locals had little recollection of the community building that took place years earlier. When asked point-blank if Canada accomplished anything in our efforts, he responded, “No, I don't think we accomplished anything in Afghanistan.” 

Even if Canada did engage in community work like building schools, as did the U.S., we know it was overwhelmed by the hard power that came in the form of bombs.  

President Obama gets a lot of credit for promoting peace on the international stage, but he was even more aggressive militarily than his predecessor. His administration was responsible for a three-fold increase in troops in Afghanistan and oversaw 10 times more air strikes than George W. Bush to support the War on Terror. The bombings were used to kill insurgents, but of course there were civilians, too. Collateral damage is the euphemism used.  

Since 2001, it’s estimated that over 200,000 people in Afghanistan and Pakistan were killed due to our intervention, 62,000 of them civilians. In 2018, under President Trump, who supposedly wants to end the war, more bombs were dropped on Afghanistan than at any time since the war began. 

Even before the release of the Afghanistan Papers last week, the venture into Afghanistan was sounding eerily similar to Vietnam. These government documents just confirmed it. Like in Vietnam, there was no exit strategy. Like in Vietnam, the U.S. made enemies of large portions of the population (led by the Taliban), even though it was al-Qaeda they were after. Like in Vietnam, they chose to fight an insurgency that was willing to wait them out.  

And as much as we would like to hear that Canadians were the good guys in this conflict, we have to contend with the fact that we were partners in this U.S. venture. And that venture’s strategy was flawed from the beginning. As a U.S. former assistant secretary of state confessed: “We did not know what we were doing.” 

This is cold comfort for the families whose loved ones never returned. And it’s a travesty for the people of Afghanistan. Yes, there were positive elements that resulted from removing the Taliban – allowing girls to go to school is one prominent outcome. But this was never the purpose of the mission. One assumes these objectives could have been achieved at a cost of less than $750 billion and 200,000 lives.

 What the Afghanistan Papers reaffirm is that governments can’t be trusted in times of war. They present us with propaganda – good news stories and positive spin to keep us on board. It’s about supporting the troops, after all.  

But it’s not really about the troops or their families. It’s about supporting a narrative to ease our conscience. We don’t want to believe all that investment – the money, the lives lost, the sacrifice – was for nothing. I was persuaded Canada was making a difference. We had to be making a difference – we’re Canadians, right? 

We were duped. By government, the media, and ourselves. Nearly twenty years later, maybe we’re ready to accept the truth.