Suicide Not Painless, Despite the Song

One of the hit movies of 1970 was M*A*S*H, which spawned the highly acclaimed and wildly successful T. V. show of the same name (Sept. 17, 1972- Feb. 28, 1983). The film and series purportedly were set in an American mobile army surgical hospital during the Korean War, but many people believed that cleverly disguised the Vietnam War. I’ve always believed the T. V. show was a hit for various reasons—including the terrific acting, wry humor, inspired writing, and the bouncy and catchy theme song, 'Suicide is Painless.' The movie used the music and lyrics; the T. V. show, just the music.
I thought about the M*A*S*H theme song this week when, like many others, I was shocked and saddened to learn of the suicide of 11-year-old Mitchell Wilson of Pickering, Ontario. But is suicide really painless? If it’s not, who really suffers? Those who kill themselves? Their surviving family members and friends? Society as a whole?

I try to find a way to make
all our little joys relate
without that ever-present hate
but now I know that it's too late, and...

Refrain: …suicide is painless
It brings on many changes
and I can take or leave it if I please.

The game of life is hard to play
I'm gonna lose it anyway
The losing card I'll someday lay
so this is all I have to say.

Refrain: …suicide is painless
It brings on many changes
and I can take or leave it if I please.

--Excerpt from ‘Suicide is Painless’

(Lyrics, Mike Altman; Music, Johnny Mandel)

Mitchell Wilson's father has said publicly he thinks his son’s self-esteem plummeted in the past couple of years, and he believes he killed himself not just because of one thing, but an accumulation of various recent tragic events in his young life. First and foremost, was the untimely death of Mitchell’s mom when he was eight. Then, he was diagnosed about a year ago with muscular dystrophy (MD); learning his own future with MD was bleak at best; facing a life of no more walking, running, or playing, confined to a wheelchair, if he didn’t die first. 
Mitchell had also been bullied at school and elsewhere. Most recently, he was attacked while he was out walking, to keep his strength up; and listening to music on an electronic device. By all accounts the assault was so vicious his assailant, allegedly a 12-year-old boy, slammed Mitchell’s face into the sidewalk, even breaking some of his teeth. Then he stole Mitchell’s electronic device and, like most tough guy-cowards, ran away. They caught the boy believed to have committed the assault, and Mitchell was recently served with a subpoena to testify against him in court. But apparently he couldn’t face the prospect of confronting his alleged attacker in court, which he might've thought would set him up for even more assaults as a result. 
Mitchell decided he’d suffered enough. Now, tragically, he’s dead, at the tender age of 11, by his own hand, before his MD had a chance to really do its expected debilitating damage. His dad found him on his bed the following morning when he went to wake him for school; his head enveloped by a plastic bag, tied shut with the family dog’s leash. No more school, no more bullying, no more getting beaten up, no more pain--physical or emotional.

Was suicide painless for Mitchell, as the M*A*S*H song says? Was it painless as he lay on his bed for the last time, thinking about his dad and the rest of his family he’d never see again? Did he, mercifully, just pass out instantly from suffocation, and not suffer? Did he gasp for breath? Did he change his mind and decide he wanted to live after all, but was unable to untie the plastic bag from his head? Was his suicide painless for his dad and other family members?

Similarly, was suicide painless this summer for three active or retired NHL players, about whom I wrote in a previous blog entry? Was it painless for those who loved and cared for them? We could ask the family members of Wade Belak, the recently-retired NHL ‘enforcer’-fighter who apparently suffered quietly from some degree of depression while typically presenting himself to most who knew him as Mr. Happy-go-Lucky; and who reportedly hanged himself Aug. 31, 2011--supposedly to the surprise of all who knew him. We could ask the family members of NHL player Rick Rypien, whose depression was an open secret and who hanged himself Aug. 15, 2011. We could ask the family members of NHL player Derek Boogaard who’d been drinking and overdosed, apparently accidently, on other drugs May 13, 2011.

Bill Wilkerson, co-founder of the Global Business and Economic Roundtable on Addiction and Mental Health, recently said suicide is a “societal phenomenon” and family members and friends might never know exactly why someone killed him/herself. But he said the rest of us can better-understand how someone can lean toward suicide, and maybe help prevent it from happening, if we recognize common scenarios that can be overwhelming (Globe and Mail, Sept. 7, 2011). These include:

Ø      emotional isolation (malignant loss of self-esteem and usefulness);

Ø      peer pressure and exclusion (deep sense of having lost acceptance, recognition, belonging);

Ø      void of joblessness (deep sense of loss of identity, self-worth);

Ø      emptiness of depression (pervasive loss of the energy and motivation to live);

Ø      impulse (why not right now);

Ø      drugs/alcohol (desperation peaks);

Ø      available means (gun, rope, drugs, locale);

Ø      family history of suicide (higher risk);

Ø      youth and children (altered perceptions of death and dying; loss of place); and

Ø      social disadvantage and grievance (profound weariness of perpetual worry and seething).

Wilkerson says the chain reaction among the above 10 symptoms can be broken with love and friendship which can help steer the suicidal person toward professional help (Globe and Mail, Sept. 7, 2011). I agree, but for this to happen the person who’s feeling suicidal must ask for or accept unsolicited help if it’s offered; and the person’s friends and family members must try to be insightful and perceptive, and not be afraid to ask the tough question: are you thinking about hurting yourself?

But I suggest those who are feeling suicidal, male or female, might not admit they’re feeling or thinking that way if they’re determined to die. Because if they really are determined to die they might not invite help by letting others know how they feel, and they might not accept help if it's offered to them. Yet, they might admit their suicidal feelings and thoughts, and therefore seek or accept help, if they mainly want or need attention, sympathy, or pity more than they have a need to die.

Kathy English, Public Editor at the Toronto Star, says suicide is “the 10th leading cause of death in Canada and the second leading cause for those aged 15 to 24;” and she believes the media’s traditional reluctance to report suicides has a lot to do with conventions of our society in general, and “conventional practice within journalism” specifically. But, she adds, usually when people commit suicide, “it seems to me there’s a case to be made for “overriding public interest” in seeking to understand why” (Sept. 30, 2011). 
English argues the media, by reporting “stories about suicide,” can initiate critical conversations about depression and serious mental health issues “that affect one in five Canadians.” She adds the “conventional media silence” over suicide seems to be changing, and more journalists are reporting “the facts about suicide — which claims many more lives in Canada than homicide or car crashes” (Toronto Star, Sept. 30, 2011). 
English might be right in saying publicizing suicides can be instructive. The suicides of Belak and Rypien, and the accidental overdose-suicide of Boogaard, were all widely-reported in the media; and the NHL paid attention, at least initially. And after the headlines this week about the suicide of 11-year-old Mitchell Wilson, who couldn’t take any more of what life threw at him, many people are upset and talking about him and his heartbreaking story too.

These suicides are just an iota of the total number of course, and most aren't discussed publicly. I suspect most family members and friends might be embarrassed—because of our societal stigma—to reveal someone they loved and cared for committed suicide. But perhaps having these few stories in print, and knowing many people are talking about them, might help reduce the stigma and awkwardness of these and other suicides a little; even though they’ll never be painless, regardless of what the M*A*S*H song says.

 

Rush to Judgment: Habit, Tradition or Human Nature?

I’m a little confused about the current situation concerning 46-year-old Randall Hopley, the British Columbia man accused of snatching three-year-old Kienan Hebert from his home in the early-morning hours of Sept. 7, 2011. Thankfully, and surprisingly, the boy was returned to his home, apparently unharmed, four days later, around 3 a.m. When Kienan was returned to his home, his family was, either by coincidence or design, staying at the home of friends nearby, and had left the doors of their own home unlocked; again, apparently. 

Kienan’s father, Paul Hebert, had previously made a public plea for the abductor to return his son to a safe place, and walk away. The person who took Kienan back home in the middle of the night, to an empty house, no less, left him on the couch in front of the television, then called 911, saying the child was safely home.

I’m confused because Hopley seems already convicted of this crime, but to my knowledge he hasn’t pleaded guilty or innocent, hasn’t had a trial, hasn’t spoken publicly about the situation, and as far as I know police haven’t said publicly what, if anything, Hopley has told them about his alleged role in all of this. Yet, in true Canadian fashion, or perhaps just in keeping with the age-old and unfair ‘rush to judgment’ aspect of human nature, Hopley’s already been tried and convicted in the media, and in the infamous so-called ‘court of public opinion;’ most of whom don’t know any more about the case than I do now as I write this.

In short, do we know for sure that Hopley took Kienan Hebert? Is Hopley necessarily guilty just because he’s been arrested? Many people seem to think so. When he made his first court appearance last week after his arrest, “Outside the courtroom, a small crowd was picketing against Hopley. Their signs called for the death penalty to be brought back for offences against children” (Calgary Herald, Sept. 14, 2011). His lawyer asked for a psychiatric examination, with his next court date, via video link, set for November 9, 2011. According to CTV News Hopley’s charged with kidnapping, abduction of a child under 14, breaking and entering, and two counts of breach of probation” (http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20110915/randall-hopley-arrest-110915/). 

A Globe and Mail editorial says Hopley’s record includes a 2008 sentence of 18 months in jail and three years’ probation for attempting to kidnap a 10-year-old mentally disabled boy from his bedroom (Sept. 14, 2011). He “had a conviction in 1985 for sexual assault in matters relating to children…So there was reason to suspect a long-term problem with pedophilia” (Globe and Mail, Sept. 14, 2011). And Hopley “had been released from jail just a few weeks ago after serving a two-month sentence for assault” (Toronto Star, Sept. 17, 2011). CBC News claims “in the mid-1980s Hopley was convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to two years in federal prison, the National Parole Board confirmed” (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/09/08/bc-kienan-hebert-randall-hopley-amber-alert.html).

Kienan’s father, Paul Hebert, has blasted the justice system for not keeping closer tabs on Hopley after his previous troubles with the law: “Hopley is [at large] for a reason: because someone didn’t do their job right,” he told the Calgary Herald. “The judges and the system failed us” (Macleans, Sept. 16, 2011). I understand Hebert’s anger, but perhaps he can save some of it for himself and his wife. After all, if they left their doors unlocked the night their son was abducted, did they not fail him by not protecting him and his safety to the fullest extent possible, and for implicitly and potentially putting the boy and their entire family at risk?

When I suggest here Hopley could be not guilty of the charges relating to Kienan Hebert, I’m not being naïve and I don’t have blinders on. I realize he might be guilty as sin. But he also might be not guilty. The public won’t know for sure until he enters a plea, or is found guilty or innocent, or there’s some other kind of resolution to the case. 

I’ve covered court cases, including murder trials, for daily newspapers in my previous life. I’ve seen and heard people profess their innocence and be proven guilty. I saw a 19-year-old boy-man with a criminal background, pimples and a peach-fuzz moustache in northeastern Ontario admit to robbing the night desk clerk of a local hotel; and brag he wanted to go to “the big house.” He got his wish: a two-year sentence in Kingston Penitentiary. But I’m also aware of the many cases, in Canada alone, where many men have been convicted of terrible crimes; only to be vindicated afterwards and eventually proven innocent. So, rushing to judgment, even when the situation seems cut-and-dried, can be grossly unfair and a huge mistake.

If Hopley took Kienan Hebert, maybe he has a penchant for little boys and a need to strike out at and be in control of those he perceives as more-vulnerable than he is. And by most accounts he’s one of society’s more-vulnerable souls: supposedly borderline retarded, according to his lawyer; not much formal education; a criminal past including crimes relating to children; a troubled childhood that saw his father killed in a mine explosion when he was two years old; gravitating toward trouble after his father’s death; and being taken from his mother by child welfare when he was six or seven years old. His mother, 70, has been quoted as saying she “didn’t mind” (Globe and Mail, Sept. 17, 2011) when he was taken from her because she thought it was best for him but she loves him. “She lost track of his whereabouts and would mostly get second-hand accounts of his problems with the law” (Globe and Mail, Sept. 17, 2011).

If Hopley did take Kienan Hebert from his home earlier this month, does his own wretched background justify his actions? No. If he took the boy, could his own background help to explain his actions? Perhaps. If he took Kienan should he be held accountable in some way? Yes. But if he did take the boy, is anyone else inherently complicit in enabling the intruder to enter the Heberts’ home and commit this crime? 

Kienan’s parents discovered him gone around 8:30 a.m. on Sept. 7. He was an easy target because of his age. But did Kienan’s parents leave the doors unlocked when they went to bed; in effect potentially putting themselves and their children at risk? If so, they implicitly invited disaster, even or especially in their little town of Sparwood, B. C., population, about 4,000. If this were the case, perhaps any number of people could’ve entered and violated the Heberts’ home: anyone who checked their doors when the house was dark, or who might’ve known the family’s habits in that regard, or who’d been inside the home before and knew its layout; who knew exactly where to find Kienan, if he was the specific target. Perhaps Kienan was just the first child, or the first boy the intruder saw and decided to take, turning the Heberts’ lives upside down in the process by spiriting the boy away while the rest of the family slept.
If the Heberts left their doors unlocked all night, this seems unsafe and defies common sense in this day and age; even in the ‘safest’ communities, especially with precious children in the house. So, if this were the case perhaps Kienan’s parents must accept some responsibility for unwittingly helping to facilitate the crime. In fact, the acting mayor of Sparwood, Sharon Fraser, says this overall situation has taught the town an important lesson: "This is one of the hardest lessons all of us have had to learn, that we can't leave our doors unlocked and we can't let our children just run" (The Huffington Post, Sept. 19, 2011).

Paul Hebert, a self-proclaimed Christian, has even chosen to forgive Hopley for taking his son, even though Hopley hasn’t yet been convicted of or pleaded guilty to anything. Hebert says anger is for those who want to be victims, while compassion allows one to “move on...how can you be angry with someone who needs help as much as he does?...He still had the compassion to bring Kienan back and I can’t forget that…I think his mother needs to know that everything is okay…Hopefully, her son is going to get the help he needs now” (Globe and Mail, Sept. 17, 2011).

At first glance, Hebert’s graciousness is admirable, but on closer inspection it's seriously tarnished and ultimately ineffective. That's because he seems to contradict his faith-based big-heartedness by jumping the gun and forgiving Hopley for something of which he hasn't even been convicted; and of charges to which he hasn't even pleaded guilty or innocent. In this context, Hebert, who wants to appear charitable and presumably different from those who are more narrow-minded than he seems to think he is, actually seems just like everyone else who’s already convicted Randall Hopley--before he’s had his day in court, before he’s entered a plea, before he’s been found guilty or innocent of taking Hebert’s son, or before there’s some other resolution to the case. 

Police say Hopley was the only real suspect, because of his particular criminal history. But my question remains: do we know for sure, yet, that he took Kienan Hebert?

Another Immature Middle-Aged Male Politician?

So now we have, this time in Canada, another middle-aged married male politician—53-year-old Conservative MP Bob Dechert (Mississauga-Erindale)--exhibiting questionable personal conduct on the job with a woman who is also married, and who supposedly is just a friend. Dechert, a parliamentary secretary to Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird, sent problematic e-mails to Shi Rong, a reporter for the Xinhua news agency, which we are told is tied to China’s intelligence agencies. 
Critics of Dechert’s lovey-dovey e-mails are concerned Shi Rong is or might be a spy, and was using her ‘friendship’ with him to manipulate him into sharing Canadian government secrets with her. But the Chinese government claims the Dechert “affair” is a private matter and it’s “irresponsible” for the press to imply Beijing had any hand in it (Globe and Mail, Sept. 14, 2011). This 'private matter' was made public after Shi Rong's husband apparently hacked her e-mail and found Dechert's letters to his wife. 
Dechert's actions allow him to join the pantheon of middle-aged male politicians who’ve demonstrated suspect personal behavior--through electronic communication or otherwise--on the job. Almost all of the male politicians who're known to have carried on these kinds of indiscretions, in recent memory, have been in the United States; the list is too long to include here. Dechert now has the dubious distinction of putting Canada on the map in this regard--but there also could be more politicians in Canada whose indiscretions haven't yet been made public. At least Dechert admitted sending the e-mails to Shi Rong, unlike most of these politicians who typically deny and try to lie their way out of the mess they helped create.
In fairness to Dechert, at first glance the published transcripts of his e-mails to Shi Rong seem more embarrassing to him and potentially hurtful to his family, than harmful to Canada’s federal government and national security. He’s suggested the e-mails are harmless notes to a “friend” he met “while doing Chinese-language media communications. These e-mails are flirtatious, but the friendship remained innocent and simply that – a friendship. I apologize for any harm caused to anyone by this situation.” (Globe and Mail, Sept. 9, 2011).

Yet, Dechert’s e-mails to Shi Rong suggest a closer relationship than just a harmless flirtation. Or, perhaps his cooing was one-sided and the result of his overactive imagination; wishful thinking, more than anything else. Regardless, published reports say an e-mail sent to her from Dechert’s parliamentary office account on April 17, 2010 states: “You are so beautiful. I really like the picture of you by the water with your cheeks puffed. That look is so cute, I love it when you do that. Now, I miss you even more.” The e-mail was signed, Bob Dechert, MP. The sender account named was decheB9@parl.gc.ca and the recipient was shirong2011@gmail.com, which Ms. Shi has used as an e-mail account (Globe and Mail, Sept. 9, 2011).

In an e-mail from April 20, 2010 Dechert asks Shi Rong to watch CPAC, the Canadian parliamentary TV channel, that night when he would smile for her on-camera. “Dearest Rong…I enjoyed the drive (to Ottawa) by thinking of you…We will be voting at 6:30 p.m. If you have time, watch on TV or on your computer…and I will smile at you. I miss you. Love, Bob,” the e-mail concludes (Globe and Mail, Sept. 9, 2011).

Despite Dechert’s claims that his relationship with Shi Rong is innocent, former CSIS analyst J. Michael Cole says there’s good reason for concern: “A mid-level, middle-aged government official with access to information…He’s married, which creates another entry point for blackmail. What’s key is not so much the position or rank, but rather his access…His lack of judgment, using his government email . . . points to weaknesses that would have been identified by a professional intelligence agency…the Chinese are past masters at this game” (Toronto Star, Sept. 13, 2011).

In this context, The Toronto Star says Dechert, in an e-mail to Shi Rong apparently in 2010, notes “Shi interviewed officials at the Royal Bank of Canada. It’s not clear whether Dechert acted as a go-between to help Shi organize the interviews, but he asks helpfully, “Did you get enough information for your articles?” About three weeks later Xinhua promoted Shi’s article on how the Royal Bank weathered the 2008 financial crisis to emerge stronger, as an “exclusive” based on access to two top senior executives” (Toronto Star, Sept. 13, 2011).

Cole says it doesn’t matter that Dechert’s work for Foreign Affairs Minister Baird apparently pertains only to North American matters: “…There’s a lot in that portfolio that the Chinese would like to learn” (Toronto Star, Sept. 13, 2011). In this regard, an editorial in one of Canada's leading daily newspapers insists Dechert must come clean about the entire matter: "Chinese intelligence agents are said to gradually cultivate contacts with mid-level officials, first eliciting routine information, but eventually extorting genuine secrets. If such a process was in the works in this instance, Ms. Shi’s jealous husband may have done Mr. Dechert and Canada a favour by distributing his foolish e-mails...In any case, Mr. Dechert must be completely frank with the Canadian authorities...” (Globe and Mail, Sept. 13, 2011).

Presumably time will tell if Dechert did anything illegal, or put Canada’s security at risk, or committed moral blunders for which he might have to answer to his family and his own conscience, by sending his swooning e-mails to Shi Rong. But the appearance of potential or actual wrongdoing also must be considered. And it remains to be seen whether he resigns voluntarily, or stays in his present job, or is eventually asked or told to quit because of this situation. So far, Foreign Affairs Minister Baird seems unconcerned about Dechert’s e-mail behavior in this situation, even saying concerns about it are ridiculous. A published report attributed to The Canadian Press notes Dechert passed fresh security checks in March, 2011 (Sept. 14, 2011).

I've often thought questionable personal behaviors on the job--such as sending risqué e-mails, photos, and text messages or worse--by middle-aged, usually-married male politicians seem self-destructive: the politician could potentially lose his career, reputation, livelihood, family, and friends if the behavior is discovered; but he does it anyway. And this suggests these particular male politicians might be emotionally immature. Through their questionable or bad personal behaviors on the job they seem naive, unthinking, and/or arrogant; perhaps believing they're invincible and entitled to do what they want with impunity; and not thinking about possible consequences, or thinking they won’t get caught, or wanting to get caught. 

In short, the male politicians who behave in these ways seem like egocentric teenagers. The Free Dictionary, online, defines egocentric, in part, this way: “a self-centered person with little regard for others; regarding everything only in relation to oneself; self-centred; selfish” (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/egocentric). A key difference between these male politicians and teenagers, however, is teenagers, because of their age and emotional development, are supposed to be and expected to be egocentric. 

Does national politics, for some reason, specifically attract a number of emotionally immature and egocentric men? After some middle-aged, married male politicians get elected at the federal and national level, do they think and believe they can do whatever they want, whenever they want, and with whomever they want because of their perceived power, position, and money?

I realize MP Bob Dechert, through his e-mails to Shi Rong, might be guilty only of non-criminal stupidity, carelessness, unprofessionalism, and indiscretion, such as: 1) not thinking or caring about possible harm to Canada by cozying up to a Chinese reporter who could be a spy—even if she’s not; 2) acting like a love-sick schoolboy instead of a mature responsible politician; 3) disregarding any shame or hurt he might inflict on his family and friends if and when his e-mails became public; and 4) either not thinking about the possible consequences of his behavior, or thinking he'd never get caught, or not caring about any embarrassment, shame or job loss he might potentially incur if he did get caught.

Do Canada’s Members of Parliament get any kind of training and firm advice about how to conduct themselves when communicating electronically with others, male or female, in their professional capacities as MPs? Clearly, some kind of training seems called for since, at least in Dechert’s case, we can’t rely on his common sense and maturity to prevail.

No More '9/11'

Now the dust has begun to settle, so to speak, after the often-riveting memorial ceremonies, newscasts, and human interest stories about the most-infamous day in recent U. S. history that tragically occurred 10 years ago, I think it’s also time to put an end to the well-worn but convenient expression, ‘9/11.’

I realize some people might believe I’m being almost sacrilegious, and committing some kind of grievous sin, by suggesting we do away with this expression that has become so common. One online definition of ‘sacrilege’ says it means “the violation or profanation of anything sacred or held sacred” (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sacrilege). And of course, most reasonable people, with good reason, perceive that terrible day and its aftermath as something sacred, to be remembered, as they cherish forever the memories of friends and loved ones needlessly and brutally murdered that day.

But if many people like the expression ‘9/11’ because it’s so easy to use and because it’s become so common in our lexicon, or vocabulary, that lends credence to my suggestion that the expression should be phased out and discontinued. The expression ‘9/11’ is too easy to use, and also too common, and that’s precisely why it should be discontinued. It runs the risk of becoming trite, just a catchphrase, and somehow meaningless; notwithstanding the powerful and emotional significance of the expression when it first started being used--and of course which it still has.  
I believe that over time, if it hasn’t already begun happening, the continued use of the expression ‘9/11’ will lead many people to forget the specific year in which the ‘9/11’ air attacks occurred in New York City, Washington, and Pennsylvania.

For instance, as a rule I have a good memory for names, dates, song lyrics, melodies, and other such things. And while I always know the event to which the expression ‘9/11’ refers, I sometimes have to stop and remind myself of the year in which that awful event occurred. First, I think back to where I was, and the approximate time, when I first learned of the air attacks in New York. As I wrote in a previous blog posting, I was sitting at my computer writing an essay, around 9 a.m. I turned on the ‘Today’ show on T.V. and saw what happened just minutes earlier. ‘Oh, yes,’ I then tell myself, ‘it was 2001 and I was just starting my master’s degree.’
The meaning of the expression ‘9/11’ has even entered dictionaries, such as the online MACMILLAN DICTIONARY: “9/11’ definition: 11 September 2001, when planes flown by terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center in New York, damaged the Pentagon, and crashed into a field in Pennsylvania, killing thousands of people” (http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/number-9-11). Similarly, The Free Dictionary, also online, states: “9/11 or 9-11: September 11, 2001, the date on which two hijacked airliners were flown into the World Trade Center in New York City and another into the Pentagon. A fourth hijacked airliner crashed in open land in Pennsylvania” (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/9%2F11). 
Notably, both of these dictionary definitions of ‘9/11’ rightly specify the year in which the attacks took place. They would’ve been irresponsible if they'd just stated what happened, without specifying the year. Similarly, I think most people who use the expression ‘9/11’ without specifying the year to which it refers are unwittingly being irresponsible and even seem disrespectful to all of the unfortunate innocent victims, living and dead, of that terrible day. Nobody means to seem trite and disrespectful by omitting the year when they refer to the event, but I think that’s what has implicitly begun happening.  
I’ve often wondered who first used the expression, ‘9/11.’ Was it someone in the media? Or President George Bush? Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani? In fact, one online source, The Morning Delivery: Feats, Facts, and Historic Firsts About Items in the News (http://www.billlucey.com/2010/09/who-coined-the-term-911.html), concedes it’s hard to remember or to know for sure who first coined the expression ‘9/11.’ 
But the website claims the New York Times “first used the term ``9/11’’ in a headline for a Bill Keller op-ed article on September 12, 2001: ``Correspondent: America’s Emergency Line: 9/11’’ The Morning Delivery says when Jack Rosenthal, President of The New York Times Company Foundation was asked about the origin of the expression ‘9/11,’ he responded by email on his recollection of the day:

``Like just about everyone else in America, I kept asking myself all day, what can we do. That evening, the answer dawned on me: do just what we do every day at The Times Company Foundation, philanthropy. Why don't we start a relief fund?...Let's create a special solicitation of Times readers around the country. That night…I sent e-mails to…our…executives describing the idea and calling it The New York Times 9/11 Neediest Fund. By morning, everyone had signed on so I did the next natural thing for a former reporter and editor; I wrote it up as a story, as a convenient way to get the information across to the hugely harried Times news department.’’

The New York Times 9/11 Neediest Fund’s first article appeared on September 13; and according to Rosenthal, the fund raised $62 million with the money distributed within the first 6 months which benefited 30,000 of the neediest families.

                                                           

                                             --Bill Lucey (WPLucey@gmail.com)

                                               

We should also remember the expression ‘9/11’ is a quick and handy way for the media to refer to that day 10 years ago; to make snappy, eye-catching headlines and broadcast ‘sound bites.’ But if ‘9/11’ was first used by the media, partly for convenience because it’s a fast way to mention the tragedy, we should remember that those who don’t work in the media have no need to abbreviate references to what happened that dark day.  

So, to help preserve the memories of that day, we should all start including the year ‘2001’ when referring to the tragedy. In doing so, we could all seem more-respectful to the victims of that massacre, and help ensure we are always able to remember the specific date and year, by simply saying ‘September 11, 2001;’ or even ‘9/11/01.’ 
Neither of these two expressions is too long or cumbersome, and they’re both easy to say once you get used to them.   

NHL 'Enforcers:' Sadly, A Dying Breed

When the ‘sudden and unexpected’ deaths of three National Hockey League (NHL) ‘enforcers’—whose main job was to fight, not score goals--were announced over the past four months, in each case I automatically suspected suicide: Derek Boogaard (May 13, 2011, age 28), Rick Rypien (Aug. 15, 2011, age 27), and Wade Belak (Aug. 31, 2011, age 35). In assuming suicide, I was reminded of what my friend and supervisor—a psychiatric nurse—told me when I worked for the Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA) for nearly four years in the early-mid 1990s before I returned to school in 1996. She said when we hear or read about someone dying ‘suddenly’ at home or elsewhere, it often—but not always—suggests the person committed suicide. 
Widespread published reports indicate Rypien and Belak hanged themselves; Boogaard died of an accidental overdose of alcohol and oxycodone, according to the medical examiner involved. Regardless of whether we’re hockey fanatics or casual observers we should be concerned about these three tragic deaths, in just four months, of NHL ‘enforcers:’ three young men are dead—by their own hands, yes, either accidentally or intentionally—but they are still dead.

The term ‘enforcer’ seems to be a nice euphemism for ‘thug on skates,’ a tough guy whose main talent and ability seems to be fighting: either because of his size, physical hulk, and willingness and ability to fight; and/or because he doesn’t have the skill to actually play hockey and contribute to his team the old-fashioned way; by getting assists and scoring goals. His key role appears to be protecting his team’s more-talented hockey players by trying to ‘take out’ perceived or actual threats on the opposing team so they don’t hurt the ‘enforcer’s’ more-talented teammates.

• Belak, 6’5” and 223 pounds, was “known more for using his fists than stick-handling…played 549 NHL games, scoring eight goals and 33 points, racking up 1,263 penalty minutes” (Toronto Sun, Sept. 1, 2011). According to the Toronto Star, he “wanted to play the game so he willingly assumed the role of enforcer, taking part in 136 fights, even though he hated what he was hired to do” (Sept. 2, 2011). He recently retired from the NHL and planned a new career, partly in broadcasting.

• Rypien wasn’t a typical NHL ‘enforcer,’ said the New York Times: “He fought often — 39 times in his 119-game N.H.L. career — while scoring only 9 goals and 7 assists…at 5 feet 11 inches and 190 pounds, Rypien fell into the category of the useful, smaller, “character” player, willing to take on anyone. In each of Rypien’s 39 N.H.L. fights, his opponent was taller, according to Dropyourgloves.com…” (Aug. 16, 2011).

• At 6’7” and 260 pounds, Boogaard broke into the NHL “with the Minnesota Wild in 2005-06” (www.foxnews.com/sports), and “quickly gained a reputation as one of the game’s top enforcers,” said the National Post (http://sports.nationalpost.com/2011/05/13/derek-boogaard-found-dead-in-minneapolis/). He died in May, 2011 of an accidental overdose of alcohol and “oxycodone toxicity. Oxycodone is categorized as a painkiller. The (medical examiner’s) report said the manner of death was accidental and that no other data will be released” (May 20, 2011, www.foxnews.com/sports).

The most-recent of these ‘sudden’ deaths is that of Belak, a Toronto Maple Leaf for many years before ending his hockey career with the Nashville Predators and retiring several months ago. His death also seems the most-shocking to many people since he apparently showed no outward signs of anything amiss in his life or psyche. Yet, his mother, Lorraine Belak, has since confirmed he was suffering from depression: “I think he was taking control of that…He didn’t talk about it all the time or a lot…All I know is that it is still under investigation…The only thing I can tell you is he did not die of natural causes” (Toronto Star, Sept. 2, 2011). In addition, columnist Dave Feschuk said two unidentified sources claim Belak secretly suffered from depression, for which he was taking medication (Toronto Star, Sept. 2, 2011, http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/article/1048235--feschuk-belak-silently-suffered-from-depression-sources-say).

Belak’s father, Lionel Aadland, reportedly said his son hadn’t displayed any signs of “distress” (Toronto Star, Sept. 2, 2011). Mark Napier, the executive director of the NHL’s alumni association, “which frequently arranges and pays for medical treatment for ex-NHLers” (Toronto Star, Sept. 2, 2011), said he believes Belak never asked the association for assistance.

Notably, Belak has been widely described as always gregarious, loud, fun, upbeat, and as one who never seemed to have a bad day; always kidding around and making jokes. But in hindsight, could he have been trying too hard to be Mr. Personality? When he entertained his friends and colleagues, could he have been mainly acting? Didn’t any of them ever sense he might’ve been trying too hard to be the life of the party?

From my experience, some people who are loud, gregarious, upbeat and ‘on’ all or most of the time eventually reveal, in one way or another, they have low self-esteem, a poor self-image, and generally feel inadequate and inferior to others; they don't really like themselves very much and assume if they're just ‘themselves’ others won’t like them either. So some of these people overcompensate for those perceived flaws by becoming the guy or gal everyone loves having around because they're always good for a laugh, they don’t seem to take anything or themselves seriously, and they can liven up any situation. Did Wade Belak fall into that category?

In a telling moment during an interview with Bruce Arthur of the National Post, Belak revealed something that seems significant and especially poignant about his self-image; which could be related to his apparent suicide. When asked if he ever got special treatment in Toronto, as a Maple Leaf, he said he did at McDonald’s sometimes, but “that’s about it.” He seemed to ruminate momentarily about what his life might be like when he retired from hockey: “I mean, I don’t go throwing around ‘I play for the Leafs’ to get free stuff all the time, because I hate doing that. But I could … I should enjoy it while it lasts. Soon I’ll be a nobody” (http://sports.nationalpost.com/2011/08/31/belak-death-an-end-to-a-wretched-summer/, Aug. 31, 2011).

In saying he’d soon be “a nobody,” perhaps Belak was living up to his reputation as a joker, and was kidding; maybe he actually believed he’d be a ‘somebody.’ But in the context of his suicide this week, I suspect his brief remark, above, betrayed what he really was thinking and feeling about himself and his future outside of hockey. And if he really believed he’d be “a nobody” when he retired from pro hockey, he could’ve been consumed by that thought, and it might’ve played a major role in his decision to kill himself; especially if he had low self-esteem and a poor self-image.

If Belak was taking medication for depression, this might help explain why he’s generally described as being always upbeat and outgoing. The medication might’ve affected him that way, depending on the medication and how he and his system reacted to it. But does his ‘sudden’ death suggest he’d been faking his outward sunny disposition? Was his outward happy nature genuine, even if aided by medication? Or was he actually despondent, lonely, sad, and frustrated--personally and/or professionally--much of the time? Did he feel inadequate or inferior compared to players who scored goals and got assists? Had he been planning to kill himself when the moment was ‘right’ for him? Or, was his ‘sudden’ death really sudden; an aberration, utterly out of character—perhaps the result of a split-second thought, feeling or impulse, or something suddenly happening to him, or in his life?

Since their deaths, Belak, Rypien, and Boogaard have all been variously described by family members, friends, and co-workers as great guys, good friends, caring family members, great parent, sons and brothers, and gentle giants: guys who fought on the ice because they had to, but off the ice they were proverbial pussycats and would do anything to help anybody, anytime.

Not surprisingly, nobody seemed to see the deaths coming—even though, in Rypien’s case, he took two leaves of absence from the Canucks for ‘personal reasons’ and apparently his decade-long fight with depression was common knowledge at least among some of those with whom he worked. After playing several years with the Canucks, he recently signed with the Winnipeg Jets for the 2011-2012 season. In a eulogy at his funeral last month, his uncle, Alan Rypien, asked the inevitable question: “Why? How could this happen? He had a great family, great friends and a great job... He fought this disease with everything he had in him…Unfortunately the disease won the battle…” (http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/sports/hockey/jets/saying-goodbye-to-rypien-128143758.html, Gary Lawless, Aug. 21, 2011).

Interestingly, for all those who knew these three young men, various news sources suggest very few people seemed to know them well at all; how they really felt and what they really thought of being their team’s henchman on blades. By all accounts, none of these men’s family members, friends, or acquaintances knew they felt despondent, lonely, sad, depressed, or whatever feelings and thoughts they had running through their minds and bodies when they decided to end their own lives; either accidentally or intentionally.

If these three men didn’t reach out to anyone for help, this could reflect the nature of their work. Because of the notoriously ‘macho culture’ of the NHL, they might’ve felt or thought they couldn’t let their guard down and show their ‘real selves,’ fears and all, to anyone, including friends or families. Yet presumably these three young men, whose recent and untimely deaths are now being grieved by friends, families, and fans, became an ‘enforcer’ for their NHL team because they chose to do so.

Are these deaths just coincidences or a clear sign of the emotional toll being an ‘enforcer’ can take on a man, regardless of how physically tough and emotionally and mentally well-adjusted he seems to be? One former NHL enforcer, Georges Laraque, now a broadcaster, says these apparent suicides are not just a coincidence; he suggests they go with the territory.
“This job is so hard, physically and mentally. You can go to a movie theatre the night before a game, and you’re thinking of the fight you’re going to get into the next day…You try not to think about it, but you start with the drugs or the alcohol…And when you retire, most of the tough guys aren’t set (for life)," Laraque said. 
"You don’t make a lot of money as a fighter…so they go back to drugs and alcohol. There’s no options…there’s the people who say ‘let’s take fighting out of hockey.’ Are you kidding me? Whoever decides to make that rule (no fighting), then you’re really going to have a problem with these guys. If there’s depression when you retire, how bad do you think it’ll be if you take 75 (fighters’) jobs out of the NHL so they can’t even earn a living? You create a bigger problem by trying to fix the problem.”

(http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Hockey+enforcer+deaths+coincidence+Laraque/5341512/story.html)

The apparent intentional and accidental suicides of Wade Belak, Rick Rypien, and Derek Boogaard—all since May 2011--led NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman and Donald Fehr, Executive Director of the NHL Players' Association to say they won’t let the three deaths pass “without examining the events surrounding each one in full…these tragic events cannot be ignored…Our organizations are committed to a thorough evaluation of our existing assistance programs and practices and will make immediate modifications and improvements to the extent they are deemed warranted” (Aug. 31, 2011). 
Time will tell.

Jack Layton’s State Funeral: Others Died Too

After a lot of reflection, I now have to wonder whether yesterday's state funeral for Jack Layton, NDP Leader and Leader of the Official Opposition, was too much; whether it wrongly implied he was the only person of importance who died this week. The public outpourings of emotion and the positive sentiments about him, expressed by average people in the streets and at the funeral service itself, were heartwarming and apparently warranted. By all accounts, he deserves the accolades bestowed on him recently, including yesterday at his state funeral, since his untimely death last week at the age of 61 after a second bout with cancer. The state funeral apparently wasn't his idea. Prime Minister Stephen Harper reportedly offered the rare honor to Layton’s widow, fellow NDP MP Olivia Chow, which she accepted.

Yet, in hindsight I question if the state funeral led too many people to not realize or care that many others in this country also died this week; people who were just as important in their own right, and just as significant to their families and friends, as Jack Layton was to his. In saying this, I am mindful that Layton's situation was unique compared to 'ordinary' Canadians, because his high profile and the nature of his work allowed him to meet, 'connect with,' and potentially help many people over the years; and to simultaneously build a good life for himself and his family as well.

A cursory look yesterday at obituaries in the Toronto Star and Ottawa Citizen, daily newspapers in the two cities where Layton lay in state before his funeral, showed 148 people died over the past week; 81 in and around Toronto, and 67 in and around Ottawa. Perhaps the actual number of deaths is really much higher, if many of the deceased weren’t listed in those two newspapers.

There's no question Layton cared about social issues and tried to help others, and he was paid for it as an elected Member of Parliament. But perhaps many others who died this week also did what they could in their own ways, for free, to help others and make their communities a better place. Layton was friendly and charming, but no doubt many others who died this week were as well, with stellar reputations. By all accounts, Layton was a hardworking, good and decent person. Without taking anything away from him, obituaries yesterday in the Toronto Star and Ottawa Citizen indicate many others who died this week also seemed honorable, respected and well-liked.

A quick scan of obituaries in Toronto and Ottawa, the two key cities in Layton’s life, shows people who died this week were, like Layton, considered by their families and friends to have had “true character,” and are variously called a hero, awesome, soul-mate, adored, deeply cherished, beloved and dearly beloved. One of the deceased lost a “hard-fought battle with cancer;” one’s funeral would be a “celebration of dad’s life.”

Similarly, Layton apparently wanted his funeral to be a celebration of his life, not merely a maudlin event. By various accounts, he loved and courted the limelight; liked being the centre of attention, and performed accordingly when necessary; he was a showman, and a good one at that. I read in various sources this week he wanted his funeral to be public, as well as a showcase for the NDP agenda; to help further ‘the cause.’

Layton was a skilled, intelligent, and talented politician, so we can assume he knew the importance of being perceived as friendly and likeable and even might have carefully crafted at least some of that public image—to complement what seemed to have been his own natural charm, friendliness and likeability. He also might have learned early on, or just knew instinctively how to use his innate 'people skills' to ingratiate himself to others who could help him personally and politically; which could also help advance his long-standing ‘social justice’ causes such as gay rights and homelessness, among others.

All of this strongly suggests—with apologies to Welsh poet Dylan Thomas—Layton didn’t want to go gentle into the good night. He didn’t want a low-key quiet funeral service with just family and close personal friends. He didn’t want to leave unnoticed, with no fanfare. Even in death, he courted the media as he did so often in life, in and out of the House of Commons, to get his ‘message’ out to the public. In fact, Adam Radwanski in The Globe and Mail (last updated Saturday, Aug. 27, 201), said it may have taken Layton’s “death to bring all these attributes into sharper focus (and to cause some of his more grating characteristics, including his penchant for self-promotion, to be overlooked).”

If I were a family member of someone who died over the past week, I might think the state funeral unfairly gave too much attention to Layton, compared to the minimal attention usually given to 'ordinary' Canadians when they die. After all, to keep things in some kind of perspective amid the wide-spread public grieving for this highly-popular man and politician, he wasn’t God although some might now perceive him as their god, and a legend and icon; he didn’t discover a cure for any fatal disease including the cancer that apparently killed him; and, when all is said and done, he was just a human being like all of the others who died in the past week.

Furthermore, because Layton died so soon after becoming Leader of the Official Opposition and of the presumed government-in-waiting, he didn’t even achieve anything politically in that capacity--notwithstanding the positive, inspirational effect he had on many people over the years, and his extraordinary feat of becoming Opposition Leader in the first place. Of course that achievement was remarkable in itself since his New Democratic Party (NDP) was once the last-place political party in the House of Commons. He might well have accomplished great things as Opposition Leader, and even might have become prime minister down the road. Sadly, however, the cursed cancer ravaged his personal life and political plans. Unfortunately, he just didn’t have the time to show himself and the rest of us what he might have made out of his new job as Opposition Leader when Parliament resumes in September.

Last, we would also be well-advised to remember that not all deaths this week were those of the human kind; animal deaths, specifically those of house pets, can lead their owners/masters to grieve as much in their own right, as so many have rightly mourned, and still mourn, Jack Layton. In this context, my younger brother Jamie’s cat, Scruffy, died a terrible death this week, falling from the balcony of his apartment in Toronto, to the ground below; apparently during a nasty mid-week rain-and-thunder storm. Jamie discovered him on the ground, still alive, some hours later; took him to a nearby veterinarian, but, sadly felt compelled, because of Scruffy’s internal injuries, to have him euthanized.

I asked him if he was going to walk around the city and take in any of the makeshift tributes to Layton. But he said he wasn’t up to it, feeling as badly as he did about the equally-tragic death--relatively speaking--of his cat. From everything I’ve read about Jack Layton, I think he would’ve understood.  

Jack Layton, Ph.D. (1950-2011), NDP Leader, Leader of the Official Opposition

                                            Photo from The Globe and Mail

I didn’t know Jack Layton, never spoke to him, never saw him in person, and I’ve never read his writings on homelessness or other matters of concern to him. But, strangely enough, I felt I knew him all the same; a sentiment apparently shared by many other Canadians. I’ve never been a member of any political party, including the New Democratic Party (NDP), of which he was the undisputed leader until his untimely death today, Aug. 22, 2011. I follow politics, but I’ve never been involved, per se, in politics.

Yet, sometimes a political leader comes along, or eventually pervades the public consciousness after being around for a long time, who really makes a strong, positive impression on you—regardless of whether you know much about his or her politics, or agree with them. Jack Layton was that kind of politician; he seemed to be that kind of person. At least that’s what I’ve ascertained from watching and listening to him over the years, in newspaper and magazine stories, in radio and television interviews and in other performances, such as televised leaders’ debates; and from reading what other politicians say about him.

I was surprised when Layton held a brief news conference a few weeks ago to report he was taking time off from his positions as NDP Leader, and Leader of the Official Opposition, to fight another kind of cancer that required his full attention. I was surprised because, until then, he’d seemed fit and hearty, despite the presence of the cane he used—sometimes for show, it seemed—during the May 2011 federal election. In making his critical announcement that he was taking a break to fight for his health so he could continue fighting for Canadians, he seemed brave, determined, and hopeful; the story of his life, and nothing unusual from what I’ve read about him. Being hopeful, or pretending to be endlessly hopeful seemed his stock-and-trade; an admirable quality, to be sure. Did he know or sense the odds were stacked against him? Was he feigning his optimism? Does it matter?

In retrospect, of course, that short news conference ultimately was, sadly, Layton’s farewell televised address to the country. Watching him during that news conference, he looked gaunt, so frail and physically vulnerable I wondered if he wasn’t being somewhat naïve in believing, and telling the country, he’d be back to work in September. Maybe, though, it was just his genuinely optimistic and hopeful way of doing things. I wanted to put my arm around his shoulder and help him off the stage; to tell him he didn’t have to be making that speech; that it would’ve been easier to just issue a news release and give it to the media, or have someone else read his statement for him.

But, apparently that wouldn’t have been Jack Layton’s style. I’ve read he had the strength of character and the courage of his convictions to never run from a confrontation or a fight; that he always believed in meeting challenges head-on, win or lose; that he thought meeting his opponents face-to-face was important because it might lead to some kind of positive or otherwise worthwhile exchange or sharing of knowledge, understanding, or agreement. He seemed to be demonstrating that mettle during that news conference as I watched him announce his supposed temporary departure from his work—as he clearly was fighting the fiercest and most-powerful challenge of his relatively young life; after all, he was only 61 when he died today.

Watching Layton that day, I wanted to believe he was right; that he would, in fact, lick this new cancer and soon be back on top of his political game, and of course personally as well. But when I watched him, to me, his physical appearance belied the reality of his terrible, tragic situation. I just didn’t picture him returning to work, or to public life in general, anytime soon. I even predicted, to myself, I’d open a newspaper before the end of the summer and read that he’d died. Yet, I hoped I was wrong, and he was right; that he would be back on Parliament Hill in September when the House reconvenes. But today, the day of his death, I take no joy in being right.

Before Layton died, however, he was able to do something for his party that previously was unimaginable; a pipedream at best: leading his beloved once-last-place NDP in the House of Commons to its new heights as the Official Opposition; the government-in-waiting. What a feat. By most accounts, he was able to do this, in large part, because of his oversized personality, obvious friendliness and charm, his fabulous and seemingly ever-present smile, his caring nature and perpetual message of optimism and hope, and no doubt voters’ disillusionment with the other political parties in last spring’s federal election. In these various contexts, then, his death is a sad event for many reasons. So much so that, although I’m not an ‘NDPer,’ I felt sad today when I learned he’d died. I wanted him to be able to justifiably reap the personal and professional rewards of his recent huge political achievement.

After all, through the years the NDP has variously been derided as, among other things, inconsequential and a party for aging, hapless hippies whose heads were in the clouds of one thing or another; who idealistically thought peace and love and caring about others were the answers to everything. Dr. Jack Layton, during his eight years as NDP Leader, seemed to single-handedly change critics' perceptions of the party, while still epitomizing the ideals for which the NDP was once mocked. He is now being widely praised, and being held up as a role model for other politicians to emulate, as one who made a conscious effort to bring some 'humanity' into the House of Commons. In a farewell letter to Canadians, reportedly written shortly before he died and released today, the day of his death, he continued espousing those 'human' and clearly heartfelt ideals, seemingly knowing the end for him was near:

In the months and years to come...we can be a better, fairer, more equal country by working together. Don’t let them tell you it can’t be done...love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world.

All my very best,

Jack Layton

Sept. 11, 2011: A Necessary 10-Year Anniversary?

I’m not a fan of the media’s anniversary stories of disasters—natural or otherwise; and/or deaths of renowned people—normally as a result of violence or otherwise tragic and unexpected circumstances. Most of them seem to focus on the negativity of the initial event, which I find tedious. Perhaps the most high-profile recurring anniversary story, which will again make headlines in just a few weeks, concerns the intentional and deadly airplane crashes in New York City on Sept. 11, 2001.  
Now, with the 10^th anniversary of those murderous crashes close at hand, the predictable onslaught of non-stop, round-the-clock reruns of news accounts from that terrible day will be enveloping us yet again. The media’s lust for churning out anniversary stories of tragic or debilitating events, and the public’s apparent eagerness and passion for negative anniversary stories seems like a collective aphrodisiac for the media who readily produce them, and for the public who hungrily consume them. These kinds of news items usually seem negative and designed to bring viewers, listeners, and readers to their knees in a kind of contrived collective despondency. 
Yet, in fairness, these kinds of anniversary stories can also be helpful in some ways, especially if: 1) they inform and educate younger people who weren’t ‘there’ when ‘it’ happened--to help them understand the national grief that gripped many people, maybe even their own family members, when the actual incident occurred; and 2) if the anniversary stories include insights learned and perspectives acquired by authorities--which, theoretically, might help prevent these kinds of disasters from happening again. Overall, then, I think anniversary stories of a terrible event can be complementary, healthy, informative, and potentially beneficial; especially if they include new, updated, and otherwise helpful information.
I think it’s unnecessary to recount here the details of the horrendous incidents of Sept. 11, 2001. Suffice it to say, though, the media, with its often robotic regularity, can be almost guaranteed to bombard and saturate themselves and the viewing, reading, and listening public with an overbearing barrage of print stories, photographs, T.V. footage, and dramatic radio clips from 10 years ago. From a human standpoint, of course we should remember what happened that day; as well as other tragic high-profile events throughout history, mainly because we might continue to learn from them. But do we really need to see, hear, and read about the horrifying events of Sept. 11, 2001 all over again in explicit, graphic ways—as likely will happen with predictable regularity on the upcoming anniversary itself, and for some time afterwards? 
Frankly, too many anniversary stories of tragic events such as the airplane crashes of Sept. 11, 2001 just seem redundant--mainly reruns, reprints, and rehashes of the initial reports; sad story after sad story, which raises questions about media and business ethics, and media control. First, are anniversary stories of disastrous situations really just good for business? Media outlets make money from advertisers who know they can potentially sell more of their products and services if they hawk their wares during the anniversary stories. Second, do the media, collectively, control how and what the public feels and thinks during these anniversary stories, by cleverly manipulating people’s emotions and thoughts with dramatic film footage, still photographs, and oral and written storytelling? 
Some might say this scenario epitomizes the proverbial ‘which came first, the chicken-or-egg’ question: 1) has the media, as a collective unit, created this overall situation, convincing themselves and the public these anniversary stories are essential to remembering the tragedies in question, and these stories are just responsible journalism? Has the media, collectively, created this situation mainly because it’s good business;? or 2) has the public created the situation by demonstrating—through their previous practices of viewing and listening to these stories, buying newspapers and magazines, and logging into online news sites, among other things--that they need and want these kinds of anniversary stories of tragic situations; and they want the media to seriously influence their emotions—for better or worse--with anniversary stories, even for events that happened long ago?

I was studying for my Master’s degree in Halifax, Nova Scotia when I learned of the first intentional airplane crash in New York City on Sept. 11, 2001; and writing an essay for one of my courses, around 9 a.m. that day. I turned on the small television beside my computer, as I often did when writing, and saw for the first time, on NBC’s Today Show from New York, not far from the crash site, what had happened just minutes earlier. Like most people, I was mesmerized. Strangely, at that moment, New York City seemed just around the corner, thanks to the immediacy and power of television. I suddenly felt sad. My heart sank.

I felt as though I wanted to be there and do something, anything, to help someone else and/or me feel better in some way but there was nothing I could do—or wanted to do—but watch the television screen. I set my essay aside for a few minutes, watching the television in stunned silence. I was focused too much on that catastrophic news story, anyway, and knew I’d be wasting my time trying to write. Before long, however, I knew I had to turn off the T. V. if I was going to finish and hand in my essay that day; first things first, I told myself. As one who’d worked in the media, I also knew that story would still be happening when I finished my essay; it wasn’t going away anytime soon; and of course it hasn’t. 

Since Sept. 11, 2001, there’s been a string of often-repetitive anniversary-and-related stories published and broadcast over the years. Most of these kinds of stories mainly seem to rehash old information, and can potentially be mentally and emotionally exhausting and even psychologically trying for many people, depending on each person’s situation. Of course people don’t have to pay attention to these anniversary stories. But human nature being what it is, many of us seem drawn to drama—even or especially if it involves a real-life horror of unimaginable proportions such as the events of 10 years ago. There might not be all-encompassing answers as to why this happens, but here are some suggestions:

 

•  Maybe we hope to gain some new understanding, insight or awareness of the Twin Towers air attacks because they were so extraordinary and dramatic; even though we've seen or heard them many times before;;

• Some people who think they don’t have much in their own lives might immerse themselves in these high-profile negative anniversary stories to help themselves feel they’re part of something significant;
• Perhaps humans, collectively, are gluttons for punishment: we know we might feel terrible after hearing, watching, and reading too many stories about the Sept. 11, 2001 tragedies, and others such as the violent death of Diana, Princess of Wales nearly 15 years ago, but we do it anyway;
• We might relish these anniversary stories with some satisfied smugness—an ‘I’m glad it was them and their family member/friend, not me or mine’ attitude. If so, we’re not exactly taking pleasure in others’ misfortune, as the German word Schadenfreude denotes; but we’re glad we weren’t in that location when the disaster occurred, and we can also--perhaps unconsciously—be glad it happened to ‘them,’ not us. 

One of the most enduring anniversary stories in recent memory, briefly noted above, is the untimely and violent death in a car crash in Paris of Diana, Princess of Wales on Aug. 31, 1997; as rehashed in published and broadcast stories year after year—or at least at certain ‘ceremonial’ signposts: six months, one year, and five and 10 years afterwards, and maybe more in between that I don’t recall. Of course the media trotted out variations of these tales, albeit more-sparingly, when her eldest son, Prince William, married Kate Middleton earlier this year.

Yet, despite the repetitive nature of many such anniversary stories, they can also help us remember other important situations. For instance, in thinking recently about the impending 15th anniversary of Diana's death, I recalled a special incident with my daughter Heather, when she was nine years old. One afternoon a day or so after Diana died, Heather and I were walking toward downtown. She’d seen me watching T. V. coverage of Diana’s death so I asked her if she knew who she was; she said she did. I told Heather many people in the world were very upset and sad, and crying, because Diana was very famous, popular, and young and died in a terrible car crash, she had two little boys, and a lot of people liked what they saw of her on television.

“Did you cry too, dad,?” Heather asked, catching me off-guard. For a split-second I didn’t know what to say because traditionally in our society men aren’t 'supposed to' admit to perceived ‘weaknesses’ such as crying for fear of ridicule. But a few negligible seconds later I replied, comfortably, “Yes, sometimes,” and put my arm around her shoulder as we walked. “Oh,” she said. I think that simple exchange was important for both of us: for Heather to know something personal about her dad, that he actually has feelings as she does, as though he’s almost like a real person; and for me to share that with her in an unguarded moment.

Now, as the seminal 10^th anniversary of the airplane crashes of Sept. 11, 2001 approaches, we can anticipate the predictable onslaught of heartbreaking film footage, regurgitated broadcast and print stories, photographs in newspapers and magazines, and in online news sites; and the unending regularity with which they’ll be foisted upon the public. Of course the media don’t and can’t force the public to heed any of the anniversary coverage of this or other events; but no doubt the public will gobble it up anyway, as always.

As for me, I’ll likely watch or read some of the coverage, especially if there seems to be some new or updated information, but I expect I’ll do so in small doses. Watching and reading as those stories unfolded in the hours and days after the actual air attacks on the Twin Towers in New York was often overwhelming and breathtaking in a negative way. I watched too much film footage of the same debilitating scenes, and too many of the same stories that were being rehashed and repeated even then. I was reluctant to stop watching; likely afraid I’d miss something important if I turned off the T.V. 

Now, I don’t want to let the media have that kind of control over me and my emotions, on such a grand scale, again. So for me, the old adage, ‘everything in moderation,’ seems a more-relaxing and healthier approach this time around.

NDP + Bloc Quebecois = Mixed Messages

The current confusion over the political loyalties of Quebecer Nycole Turmel, the new interim leader of the New Democratic Party (NDP) threatens to become a cancer inside the NDP itself from which the party might not fully recover; just as, sadly, its leader, Jack Layton takes time off to fight another battle with a new real cancer in his personal life. For five years, until January 2011, Turmel was a card-carrying member of the Quebec-based separatist party, the Bloc Quebecois. She cancelled her Bloc membership in January this year so she could run for the NDP in last spring’s federal election. 

Turmel’s history as a Bloc member is noteworthy, because, as one newspaper editorial said, “The Bloc was created for the explicit purpose of helping to bring into being a sovereign Quebec” (Toronto Star, Aug. 2, 2011). In other words, by being a Bloc member, Turmel implied for five years she supported the Bloc’s aim of breaking up Canada and having Quebec become a separate country. Now she’s temporary leader of a federalist party, the NDP, as the Official Opposition in Parliament.

This situation suggests at least four possible scenarios, but I don’t know if any of them is actually applicable. Yet, they merit considering: 

1) NDP Leader Jack Layton didn’t know the full extent of Turmel’s former but recent affiliation with the Bloc before recommending her as interim NDP leader while he fights another battle with cancer—which raises questions about why he didn’t know; or 

2) Layton did know all the details but miscalculated politically—perhaps because he was preoccupied with his own illness--and might’ve wrongly assumed Turmel’s Bloc history wouldn’t pose serious problems in or out of his own party; or 

3) In touting Turmel as interim NDP leader, Layton knew the details about her Bloc past but didn’t tell the NDP caucus or the public about it—perhaps to protect Turmel; or 

4) Layton, a former professor with a Ph.D. and an intelligent and skilled politician, learned about Turmel’s Bloc past after the spring election and realized it was problematic for the NDP; unbeknownst to Turmel he offered her up as a sacrificial lamb as interim NDP leader, hoping her Bloc history would come out, and she’d be history.

Turmel seems to dismiss her Bloc membership as irrelevant, claiming she joined the separatists only as a favor to her friend and then-Bloc MP Carole Lavallée (Saint-Bruno-Saint-Hubert). Turmel says she’s always been a federalist, and claims she didn’t realize being a Bloc member would prevent her from running for the NDP until she filled out a questionnaire during the candidate-vetting process (Toronto Star, Aug. 2, 2011). But would an avowed federalist—as Turmel claims she is—join a party that wants to break up Canada?

Why did Turmel feel compelled to join the Bloc as a favor to her friend, Lavallee? Did Lavallee want Turmel on-board because of Turmel’s union background and contacts? As one who’d been president of one of the country’s largest labor and public service unions, the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) Turmel knew first-hand about politics in at least that union context, since big unions can be intensely political—officially or unofficially. The PSAC has members in every province and territory, and is the largest union in the Canadian Federal Public Sector (federal government). After Turmel joined the Bloc was there a verbal or tacit understanding, at least among some people in the Bloc, that she'd then try to deliver some of her friends and business contacts to the Bloc fold? Did Turmel receive some kind of gift, status, or promise from Lavallee or the Bloc for doing her friend the personal favor of becoming a card-carrying separatist?

Turmel’s alleged naïveté about joining the Bloc is baffling, since she’s from Quebec where the Bloc’s goal of becoming a separate country from Canada was so prevalent for so long; and because she was no stranger to politics. So, she would’ve been familiar with the Bloc’s intentions. Lately, she’s been publicly dismissing criticism over her past Bloc membership, as though joining the Bloc was a meaningless whim and not significant, even though she kept her membership for five years; returning her membership card only a few months before running as a federalist NDP candidate in last May's federal election. In that context alone, some might wonder if Turmel is actually a separatist disguised as a federalist for her own duplicitous reasons.

A Toronto Star editorial said "The issue isn’t whether Turmel has changed parties or political views over the years. Lots of people do that...Rather, it’s the nature of the party and how recently she was involved...Turmel cancelled her Bloc membership card only weeks before running for the NDP" (Aug. 2, 2011). The paper also claims she has kept her previous membership in “the provincial Québec Solidaire party, a far-left group that is also sovereignist, as well as one with the New Democrats” and “doesn’t seem to have seen any contradiction in these overlapping loyalties” (Toronto Star, Aug. 2, 2011).

In fairness, Turmel reportedly says she’s never voted for the Bloc; voted against separation during the 1980 and 1995 referendums; and refused overtures in the past two elections from Gilles Duceppe, the former Bloc leader who resigned after he lost his own seat in the May 2011 election, because she disagreed with the Bloc’s quest for sovereignty (Toronto Star, Aug. 2, 2011). Turmel has apologized for going to the Bloc party: “I’m sorry. I signed a (Bloc membership) card, but at the same time, I’m here now,” she reportedly told QMI Agency (Kristy Kirkup, Sun Media, Aug. 2, 2011).

In Turmel’s brief resignation letter to the Bloc—dated Jan. 19, 2011 and published in The Globe and Mail—the English translation quotes Turmel saying that returning her membership card “has nothing to do with the party's policies, I am doing this for personal reasons" (Aug. 1, 2011). What does that mean? Although, as noted above, Turmel said she previously wouldn’t run for the Bloc because she disagreed with its “quest for sovereignty” (Toronto Star, Aug. 2, 2011), she suggests otherwise, in claiming that retracting her Bloc membership “has nothing to do with the party’s policies…” 

In this context, is Turmel is just an opportunist? Did she renounce her Bloc membership in January 2011 because she sensed the separatist Bloc would be trounced in the spring federal election in her province of Quebec? Did she sense the NDP would do well in Quebec in the election and she would do well to be an NDP candidate? Did she then decide to run for the NDP, because it seemed convenient and she wanted in on the NDP gravy train as an elected MP? Were these the “personal reasons” to which Turmel referred in returning her Bloc membership card?

The Toronto Star claims Turmel said she never discussed the Bloc membership with Layton directly, but did tell him the Bloc and Liberals both approached her about running…“She said the issue never came up again, not even when Layton informed her he would recommend she become interim leader while he undergoes treatment for a new kind of cancer” (Aug. 2, 2011). In that story Turmel said she didn’t know if her NDP caucus knew she’d been a Bloc member when they voted unanimously last week for her as interim leader. “I cannot say 100 per cent knew, but a lot of them knew that I had worked with the Bloc…I didn’t hide anything. It just happened that it did not come up” (Toronto Star, Aug. 2, 2011).

Despite Turmel's reported claim, above, that she "didn't hide anything" (Toronto Star, Aug. 2, 2011), she did seem to hide things: specifically, for five years she was a card-carrying member of the Quebec-based separatist party whose aim is to break up Canada, with Quebec becoming a separate country. Saying “It just happened that it did not come up” (Toronto Star, Aug. 2, 2011) seems a convenient way for Turmel to explain away her lack of openness and implicit dishonesty about her political past with the Bloc. 

And I believe something that notable doesn’t just ‘happen to not come up.’ Turmel had to decide to not bring it up, perhaps because she sensed the potential negative repercussions for her if she did. If she’d acknowledged her Bloc background as an NDP candidate last spring, voters might’ve doubted her political loyalties and intentions and not elected her; and if she’d revealed the details, unambiguously, to Jack Layton and the NDP caucus, they might not have endorsed her candidacy, or not supported her as interim leader in Layton’s absence.

Overall, Turmel has been, no doubt inadvertently, dragging the NDP, her leader, and herself through the mud in a very public way. In doing so, she has created a perceived conflict of interest and has put the NDP, its leader, and herself in a compromising situation; and she simply seems deceptive or unbelievably naïve for apparently thinking nobody would learn she was a card-carrying separatist for five years until just a few months ago.

Turmel also suggests too many people are fussing over her perceived mistakes, and implies the public and media should be focusing on the NDP’s goals, not on her. “It’s not the person. It is about the issue and the issue in the NDP is to make sure that we advance the agenda of Canadians…It’s not about Nycole Turmel. It’s about…doing a great job” (Toronto Star, Aug. 2, 2011). Here, Turmel is just wrong and implies she’s trying to minimize her responsibility in this mess; or she really doesn’t understand the potential severity of the problem she helped create--by not being fully open, long ago, about her Bloc history. In fact, contrary to Turmel’s claim, above, that this matter “is not about Nycole Turmel” (Toronto Star, Aug. 2, 2011), this issue is about Nycole Turmel. She had a huge hand in creating these present problems because she didn’t disclose, clearly, that she was a card-carrying separatist party member for five years--and gave it up only a few months ago so she could run for the NDP.

But despite Turmel’s perceived missteps in her brief elected life thus far, her leader and other NDP officials also seem to have helped create the predicament. To this end, two of Canada’s major newspapers savaged Turmel, Jack Layton and the NDP in their editorials. The Globe and Mail argued that if Layton, “who publicly declared for Ms. Turmel when he announced his leave for cancer treatment, and the party's council, knew of her history and still backed her for the interim leader's job, then they are reckless with the trust given them by Canadians. If they did not, then they are incompetent” (Globe and Mail, Aug. 2, 2011). The Toronto Star suggests Turmel doesn’t have the moral authority to lead the NDP, even temporarily: “Canada needs a strong official opposition, and Turmel has left herself too vulnerable to attacks on her credibility and, ultimately, her dedication to national unity” (Toronto Star, Aug. 2, 2011).

To borrow a religious notion, Turmel, Jack Layton, and the NDP executive don’t seem to realize or remember the concepts of ‘sins of omission’ (leaving out important information to protect oneself or others; or doing something without thinking or considering it might be wrong), and ‘sins of commission’ (knowingly and willingly doing something and knowing it’s wrong; a conscious decision, being aware of the pros and cons of performing the act and doing it anyway). Were Turmel’s five-year affair with the Bloc Quebecois until just a few months ago, and Layton’s and the NDP’s knowledge or lack thereof about Turmel’s separatist history and their action-lack of action in that regard, acts of omission, or of commission?