Columbine: Looking for Answers

Today marks the tenth anniversary of the Columbine High School Massacre that left fifteen people dead and another twenty-three injured after two gunmen went on a rampage at their high school in Littleton, Colorado. Afterwards, questions abounded, and answers stockpiled as well.

Many of the purported ‘reasons’ for the killers’ actions reflected the notion that they were outcasts, goths, nerds, or played violent video games and listened to violent music. Fans of Marilyn Manson, much of the blame was placed at his feet for ‘influencing’ these young men to commit this heinous act. It seems somewhat ironic that a man whose stage name and persona is a play on the association between pop culture and mass murder is subsequently blamed for such an event.

Manson was interviewed by Michael Moore for Moore’s documentary Bowling for Columbine, in which he discussed gun control and American culture in the context of the Columbine massacre. Say what you will about Moore (or Manson), but the discussion they had covered a number of relevant topics. In the interview, Manson highlights a number of other factors that were much more likely contributors to the events than any simple answer of violent music. According to Moore, the United States dropped more bombs on Kosovo that day than at any other time during the war. Manson also highlights a culture and cycle of fear and consumerism perpetuated by the media as more damaging than any rock-n-roll music. The final question of the interview is the one which has stuck with me the longest since first viewing the film, and it’s when Moore asks Manson what he would say to the kids involved and the people in the community, to which Manson replies: “I wouldn’t say a single word to them, I would listen to what they had to say, and that’s what no one did.”

And he’s right. Too often we are all too focused on what we would say and do, and speaking louder to ensure that we are heard, when instead we need to stop and listen to each other. When people become disenfranchised and feel they are wronged, they make sure they are heard in whatever way they can. When that is mixed with violence and adolescence, we find ourselves with tragedies such as Columbine. When it is mixed with radical nationalism and misplaced religious zealotry, we have events like September 11th. When it is met with peace and support, we have “Give Peace a Chance”.

In order to resolve any number of the conflicts facing the world today, we much approach them with this same resolve. We are all the same, and we all just want to be heard. What is right and just will inevitably triumph, and the way to see to this is by encouraging open communication amongst all parties.

Russ

Saving Our World for Tomorrow: A 21st Century Approach to Politics and Sustainable Development (Part 1 of 4)

This is the first in a series of 4 articles by Brent Densmore dealing with the current crisis facing the world as a result of 20th century over-expansion and unsustainable development. Today's article is an introduction to the series, a contextual look at some of the factors that have contributed to where we are today, as well as some of the challenges that we face in moving forward. Please check back at 5pm EST on each of the next four Fridays for the continuing story.

The collapse of the Berlin Will and the subsequent end to the Cold War reinforced the fact that capitalism and democracy were the dominant economic and political systems of the world. The spread of the free market economy and the rapid decrease in telecommunication infrastructure have resulted in an extensive global marketplace that is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Rich western nations, such as the United States and Great Britain, are no longer the economic super powers they once were. India, Japan and China, to name a few, now have the same access to markets and information as the rest of the world.

As a result, these nations are now able to compete with the historically rich nations, something many thought could never be done. It was only 30 years ago that wealth was virtually non-existent in these nations; today, their economies are growing at a rapid pace and their people are reaping the benefits. These nations however, are now consuming more food and water than ever and are demanding many of the same consumer products we have in here in Canada.

While it is a great that these new nations are now prospering, the world as a whole cannot sustain this new level of consumption; never before have our natural resources been depleted at such an alarming rate. There will be nothing left of our planet if we continue to live at this rate for the next 50 years.
(Editor's Note: a recent article from the BBC suggests that global resources will be depleted even faster, please see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7951838.stm)

In order to fix this problem and right the ship for future generations, we must all begin to live a more sustainable way of life. It will take a collected effort to change our old habits, something that may be hard for many, but it must be done.

The first step to implementing a more sustainable way of life requires a change in government policies. Secondly, the use of renewable resources as legitimate energy sources must become a reality. Finally, there must be changes made to how our cities are being built. While this is by no means an inclusive list, these three ideas will build the crucial foundation of a more sustainable way of life.

The development of a more sustainable way of life will require everyone to make a diligent effort. This isn’t something that one person or country can accomplish on their own. In order to make sure that everyone is on the same page, it will require the leadership of all governments around the world. They must be committed to significant change and be willing to absorb public resentment for as with any other new idea, there will be a share of the public who opposes new ideas.

As mentioned previously, the first step in this process is for governments to change certain outdated policies and most importantly, enact new environmental legislation. Mark Lynas states “the environment is still seen as a soft-focus poor relation to the real hard-politics issues such as health, the economy and asylum-seekers and so on” (Lynas: “Bring in the police to save the planet.” New Statesmen 9 May 2005: 40). The era of growing GDP at the expense of the environment must come to an end. While there is no denying that these too are important issues, it is clearly time that the environment becomes part of this list.

During the recent United States presidential election, President Obama released an extensive list of environmental policies and ideas that he believed would help cure our addiction to an unsustainable way of life. Some of his ideas included “government investment in clean energy and green jobs, promotion of green technologies and fuel efficiency standards, protection of the Great Lakes and National Parks, and the promotion of inner-city recycling programs” (“Obama on the Environment”). While by no means is this an inclusive list, it is an excellent start and it is a relief to see that the President of the United States has aspirations to fix this problem.

The most important ideas Obama lists relate to the promotion and investment in clean energy, technologies and jobs. If the government doesn’t promote or invest in these ideas then who will? In today’s competitive global market, corporations will require a long-term commitment from their governments on these issues. They won’t be willing to radically modify their factories, offices and practices unless everyone else is following suit. From their viewpoint, why would they? Aside from a few exceptions, no corporation will sacrifice their profits and reduce shareholder value while their competitors stand pat and face no punishments. Therefore, not only will there be a requirement for new policies to be enacted but there also must reward-based system in order to encourage speedy compliance.

Brent Densmore

Next week Brent will discuss and break-down some of the political changes that have the potential to revolutionize the way the environment is treated within politics, as well as a look a the some of the international issues that pose a challenge in solving this crisis.

Obamamania

Today's post will be slightly different in that it will be more personal and more rant-like. However, I hope these factors will make it no less enthralling.

As I'm sure many people were aware, American President Barack Obama made his first foreign visit as president to Canada this past Thursday. It was quite the ordeal, and made us feel special again, after Bush's Mexico snub. The rest of the world must be green with envy. The requisite bus trips were planned from the GTA and around the country, and Obama Tees were on sale again. Multiple camera crews milled through the throngs asking people what the day meant to them, and CBC had a couple of hours of coverage, including some stirring images from the quiet, rainy, closed streets before the motorcade arrived. All this attention, even though Obama's schedule barely included time for a wave from his limo into parliament.

I actually made my way to parliament hill shortly after he arrived, but the excitement had mostly died down. There were still some cameras and sign-wavers, but many of the people had dispersed. Still there, however, were the snipers on various roofs around the parliament, which led to a discussion about how many innocent lives would be justified in being taken to protect the president. I fully appreciate the security concerns, and perhaps more so with Obama's unique circumstances. I also appreciate that these people have a job to do, and if there is an imminent threat to the president, then those responsible may have to die quickly. I don't have a problem with the snipers being there, nor was there any indication that they would hastily place anybody in harm's way. It was really more of a rhetorical debate about the circumstances.

My issue with the security came later in the day. We grew tired of waiting outside parliament in the drizzle, so we returned to grab our skates to play some hockey. We ventured across the frozen canal, and made our way to the Sandy Hill rink, only to find it still covered in snow. We decided to try our luck at Jack Purcell, which involved crossing back over the canal. It was when we arrived at Pretoria Bridge that we were informed we would not be allowed to cross until the motorcade had passed, which wouldn’t be for another forty-five minutes. We wouldn’t be allowed to cross anywhere.

Let me set the scene for those of you who are unfamiliar with the ins and outs of Ottawa. The Rideau Canal runs from beside the parliament buildings down to Carleton University. This is about an eight kilometre stretch of the city, with Colonel By Drive following the east side. It was down Colonel By that the president would be travelling to get back to the airport, and therefore the road was closed. To everybody. I can understand keeping vehicular traffic off the street. A man who barely has time to wave can’t be held up by congestion, and I suspect exploding cars have the potential to do more damage that exploding people, even if you are in a bomb-proof limo. But to not let pedestrians cross the street half an hour before he is scheduled to arrive is a little bit ridiculous. Even more so when you consider that the street is eight kilometres long.

We were essentially stuck. The ever helpful police officers snidely suggested we pay for a cab to drive us across on the highway, but we are not in the habit of paying to cross the street, and we took no cash on our hockey excursion. We couldn’t even go home because we lived on the other side of the canal. The people skating on the canal were fine, and there were stairs leading up to the other side of Colonel By from the skateway, but those two lanes were impenetrable. There must have been twelve of us standing beside the road while nobody drove past, held at bay by two grouchy cops. When someone appeared on the other side from the canal, they were quickly attended to and told to stay where they were. (The cop crossed the street to do so.) There was even a police car that drove down the street with a megaphone instructing people to get off their balconies if they overlooked the road, which raised the attention of two cops stationed nearby who wandered towards the site of the people standing quietly on private property to check it out. I would have been tempted to find out what their response would be if I refused to go back inside. I don’t think ‘peacefully enjoying a winter’s afternoon on your balcony’ is a criminal offence.

I reiterate that I understand there are security concerns. I appreciate that they have to take precautionary measures. But I should remind you that this man is driving around in vehicle flown in for the occasion, encased in five inches of military grade armour, among many security specifications. I don’t think the good people living on Echo Drive are likely to be out there with nefarious intentions, and I would like to think that someone would notice a person setting up weapons extensive enough to harm the president. I also think someone with truly evil intentions could simply run back outside as the first cars in the motorcade drove by. Or perhaps those of us waiting to cross around the city could pull out our rocket-launchers just at the right second.

There are going to be security concerns, but you can’t account for everything. Especially in a country like Canada, where his approval rating has topped 80%, and our list of assassinated politicians is two names long in 142 years. Full credit to Obama for squeezing in some time to stroll around the Byward Market and buy a Beavertail and some trinkets, showing his appreciation and comfort in our nation. I suppose a truly clever assailant could have sprinkled some cyanide in with the cinnamon, but Obama was willing to take this risk. However, the Ottawa police were not willing to take the risk of letting citizens cross a major street spanning much of the city up to thirty minutes before the heavily armoured motorcade drove by, nor were they comfortable with people enjoying the presidential view from their balconies. I suppose on the plus side we got to glimpse the outline of his head through the thick tinted glass, but I don’t think that really makes up for the indignity served to the people of Ottawa.

Russel MacDonald

Obama: A Canadian'80s Perspective

Welcome back again. After a slow start to the year, the Blog Journalists are back on track and ready to return to our steady schedule of posts Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, at 5:00pm EST. We will be joined by new member Brent Densmore with a weekly post, as well as be unveiling some new features in the coming weeks. Thanks for reading, and remember to check back frequently. Now for Monday's post:

Five days after the eightieth anniversary of the birth of Martin Luther King, Jr., Barack Obama will be inaugurated as the forty-fourth President of the United States. The fact that my father was not only alive, but almost a teenager when King was assassinated in 1968 is I think somewhat lost on my generation. The event is chronicled in our history textbooks, somewhere after Sputnik, and just before Trudeau. We cannot grasp the enormity of systematic racism or the civil rights movement from our Canadian'80s vantage point. That perhaps is a testament to how far we have come. Hopefully Barack Obama's ascension to the Oval Office is a further testament to that.

Much has been made about Obama being the first African American President, and this is indeed a significant event. But more importantly in our post-race world is the fact that he will be the first president born after 1946. He is fifteen years younger that W and Bill Clinton, and he is twenty-five years younger than John McCain. He is also younger than Harper, Brown, Sarkozy, Merkel, Rudd, Putin, etc, and he will be the first president since 1989 not to be named Bush or Clinton. While Hillary Clinton certainly had her own qualities and merits, it is important for America to embark in a new direction of the next generation. Dare I say 'Change'.

America is at a cross-roads. Before his term is even over, the title of 'Worst President' is being bandied about for Bush (much to Warren Harding's delight). Grappling with debts and recessions, wars and oil, and an international image that is not merely tarnished but thoroughly corroded, there is a lot on the plate of the incoming president. He campaigned on the promise of Hope and Change, and he is being heralded a savior world-wide. Kenyans were dancing in the street. These are extremely high expectations for a man entering the post under two foreign wars and a global recession. Will he be able to live up to all that is expected of him and all that is necessary of him? I believe he has the tools and the temperament to be unlike any leader we have seen for a long time, and certainly has a better shot at righting things than everyman moose-hunting hockey-moms. Reading passages from The Audacity of Hope just made me tingle with idealism.

Are we really living in a post-race world? Of course not. Despite what Stephen Colbert says, subtle racism, as well as sexism, streak through our society (just ask Prince Harry). Will Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton change that? Probably not. But him at the helm represents a chance for a new direction; a hope for change. There are watershed moments in history; moments when we stop running uphill and start bouncing down the other side. Just as the end of the First World War realized a new kind of warfare, 20 January 2009 will realize a new kind of president. One which we can believe in.

Russel MacDonald