Author Archives: Jay Menard

The Future is Now

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

For all of you out there lamenting the state of today’s youth and worrying about the future of our society, it’s time to put up or shut up. The future can be bright – especially with organizations like Future Possibilities around to help foster and grow our community’s leaders.

Unfortunately, the organization is in dire straits – not for lack of promise by the youth, but by lack of interest and support from the very adults who, in general, condemn today’s youth for the casual attitude towards life and laziness.

Future Possibilities, whose Canadian roots start in Toronto, branched out last year with a satellite operation in London’s Glen Cairn Public School. The program is designed to pair a young child, between the ages of eight and 12, with a Kid Coach – an adult from the community who works weekly with the child to create, develop, and execute a Goal of Contribution to the community. All of this at no cost to the participants.

And, while the participants may be small, the scope of their goals betrays their diminutive stature. Last year, for example, Canadian participants ran fundraisers and drives which resulted in the donation of thousands of items and funds to women’s shelters, food banks, hospitals and humane societies. Students were able to raise money and donations for families in war-torn regions of our world. Students developed programs and supported the learning of the French language in our schools. They created and hosted bike-a-thons, dog-walk-a-thons, you-name-it-a-thons, all in the name of raising money for charities and foundations across this country.

Small dreamers with big dreams – and certainly their actions run counter to the stereotypical view of today’s youth.

And that’s where the stereotype falls down. These kids are all special, but their not unique. They’ve simply been given the opportunity, the support, and the encouragement from both their parents and their kid coaches to make a difference in the world around them. They’ve been shown that, no matter the size or the stature, each and every one of us in this world can make a significant difference for the better – and that’s a lesson that we, as adults, could stand to learn.

The London expansion went so well last year that the organization decided to expand again and allow more children the opportunity to participate in the program. Unfortunately, while the will was there to grow, the support has been lacking so far. But it’s not a lack of interested kids – it’s a lack of interested adults.

As adults in this world, we can’t simply sit back and shake our head at today’s youth. Being supercilious in our condemnation of today’s kids doesn’t help the situation – and, more importantly, it isn’t fair. Most kids today want to make a difference. Given the opportunity, they want to help, to be active, and to make their community a better place to live. But there’s only so much they can do on their own. They need support from adults like us.

We, as parents, community leaders, and concerned citizens, have an obligation to future generations to guide them and show them the right path. When you combine our knowledge with our kids’ enthusiasm, great things can result. And that’s been proven over and over by the goals and actions of Future Possibilities’ kids.

And the best part of this program is that it’s not a one-shot thing. Once these kids have experienced the realization of their potential, and once they get a sense of what they can do on their own, then they’re motivated to continue to make a difference in our community. They’re motivated to be better citizens, be more active, and be better role models for their peers.

There are kids who have the will, but lack the way because we’re too busy looking down at today’s youth instead of getting off our high horses and putting in some real leg work. If programs like Future Possibilities fail through lack of support, then we have only ourselves to blame.

If you’re interested in supporting Future Possibilities, either through contributions of time, resources, or support – or if you’re interested in lending your expertise and guidance as a Kid Coach – please contact Michele Sands, the London Chapter’s director, atmichele@fpcanada.org.

The possibilities for the future can be bright, but our kids need our help to shine a light on their potential.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

NHLers Thinking with the Wrong Head

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Most of the time, we guys are criticized for thinking too much WITH the little head – but, when it comes to NHL players, they’re obviously more concerned with thinking ABOUT their little head when it comes to safety.

Is there any reason why players would question your sanity if you suggested playing the game without a jock, but don’t see the folly in playing the game without adequate facial protection?

Manhood is a big part of professional sports. It’s the Neanderthalistic backdrop to competition. It’s what prevents most sports from truly being appreciated for their speed, grace, skill, and – yes, even – beauty. The most exciting or dramatic touchdown, dunk, or goal can be marred by gratuitous displays of gloating, preening, and self-importance. It’s gotten to the point where routine plays – the kind you’re expected to make as a high-school athlete – are celebrated with overt (and choreographed) attention-grabbing antics.

Thus, our sporting fields often reek with the remnants of these macho pissing contents. And, like pre-pubescent boys trying to assert their emerging maturity, common sense is often left behind in an attempt to not appear weaker than your competitor.

Which brings us back to the NHL and its players continued stubborn refusal to wear facial protection. Admittedly, it was like pulling teeth to get them to wear helmets just over two decades ago, with some resisting and clinging to grandfather clauses, until the bitter – and better – end.

Yet, the league and its players association make no effort to mandate its players when it comes to facial protection. Adhering to some ancient freedom of choice myth perpetuated by years of negligence, the players are asserting that it’s their divine right to play the fastest game in the world without complete protection.

Normally, I’m all for letting Darwin have his way with these people and letting the laws of natural selection cull those who aren’t smart enough to protect themselves from our general population. But, at the professional level, these players are not just individuals – they’re investments. Team owners literally spend millions on these players and build their product based upon the foundation that these players will be in the lineup. From marketing campaigns to anticipation of playoff revenue, forecasts are made with the idea that your stars are going to be in uniform. And that doesn’t even factor in the countless thousands of dollars that are spent on insurance policies.

The counter argument is that injuries happen and only fate will decide who pops an ACL and who suffers a fractured orbital bone – or worse – the loss of an eye. But the difference is that the former injury is truly a matter of fate, while the latter examples are more or less completely preventable.

Today’s players have come through a minor league system that mandates facial protection. From full cages at the younger and university levels, to the face shields present in junior hockey, today’s athlete spends the majority of his developmental years playing the game with something in front of his eyes. Yet, upon the ascension to the pro ranks, we’re supposed to believe that suddenly one’s vision becomes impaired by the very same thin sheet of plastic which allowed this player to rise through the ranks to become one of only a handful of people in this world with the skill and talent to play professional hockey?

As well, in this new fan-friendly hockey environment, the league and its players need to understand that it’s its principal stakeholders, the fans, who suffer the most when a valued member of their team goes down from an entirely preventable injury. The fans are the ones who purchase the tickets, buy the licensed merchandise, and support the manufacturers who use the players as pitchmen.

Finally, the players themselves need to understand that wearing a face shield is an investment in themselves. With a salary cap system, revenues tied to league earnings, and a precariously short career, to not do everything in your ability to maximize your earning potential and revenue-producing years is simply folly.

It’s time for hockey players to join the rest of us on these higher rungs of the evolutionary ladder. If they can stop dragging their knuckles long enough to grab a stick, then they’re at the developmental point where they can affix a shield to their helmet. Let’s start putting a premium on intelligence when it comes to defining manhood. Let’s take another look at what it means to be tough.

Firefighters enter blazing buildings covered head to toe in protective equipment. Does that make them any less a man (or woman in this case)? Or do we appreciate their bravery regardless of a plastic shield in front of their face? Why should the threshold for manhood be different on ice? A generation ago, people were resisting strapping on a seatbelt for many of the same reasons: we’ve never worn one before; they’re an uncomfortable encumbrance; no one’s going to tell me what to do. But look at where we’ve come since then.

The players demand the freedom of choice, so here’s a solution. Facial protection won’t be mandatory – the players can still roam the ice with their bare faces whipping in the wind, asserting their individuality and masculinity. However, if they elect not to wear a face shield, they’re prohibited from wearing a jock. Put on a mask and the cup comes back.

Simple solution. And we’ll see which head they’re truly thinking with – and which one will lead the way.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Trying to Be Green is Making Me Blue

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

I recently signed up for the One-Tonne Challenge, but now I’m feeling like the weight’s all on my shoulders, and there’s no way to get it off.

Simply put, trying to be an environmentalist in this area (and this era) is making me blue. And with the appearance that doing the right thing and trying to be green costs too much green may result in our environmental efforts failing before they’ve even had a chance to get off the ground.

For years, we’ve been bombarded by environmental doomsday prophets (Hello, Mr. Suzuki) who have waxed poetic about the declining state of our Earth. Everything we do is bad, and there’s no hope for our poor planet. Wow, there’s a way to rally the troops and move forward.

What environmentalist have ignored for too long in the fight is that the very armies they’re trying to conscript are lazy. We have grown accustomed to a lifestyle and we’re consumed by pursuit of the pocketbook. We’re not going to revert to an agrarian, self-sufficient lifestyle, without the modern comforts and amenities, so stop asking. We’re not going to give up our cars and walk to work unless it makes sense to do so.

So, the true challenge of the One-Tonne Challenge, and of similar environmental activities, is to make it make sense.

Instead of dreaming of Utopia, environmental activists have to exist in reality. Tugging at our heart strings hasn’t worked so far – so make a play for the pocketbook. The green army may be lazy, but it is easily roused when it’s time to fight for its own interests.

The city in which I currently live, London, ON, is plagued by an ineffective and impractical public transportation system. Even if I wanted to take the bus, it’s not feasible for me to do so. But, instead of focusing on improving the quality and level of service, the City prefers to focus its efforts on marketing. What the City appears to be forgetting, and to keep in the environmental vein, is that no matter how pretty the marketing package is, when you’re promoting compost it’s still compost.

I have been a vehicle owner for well over a decade. Yet, when I was living in Montreal I was an avowed proponent (and rider) of the city’s public transportation. Why? Because it made sense. A trip across the island to where I worked took 15 minutes. A trip by car, down the Expressway and through downtown traffic, could take upwards of an hour and a half. For the cost of a metro pass, roughly $50, I could get anywhere I wanted, unimpeded by traffic. When compared to the amount I’d have to pay in fuel costs, parking fees, and wear and tear, the decision was a no-brainer.

The economics made sense, the environmental benefits were secondary. But now, the tables are turned. A 10-minute car ride (roughly eight kilometers) would take me well over an hour by bus. No matter how much I want to help the environment, it’d be nice to see my family once in a while too.

If we’re to make a change, we need to change the economics of environmentalism. It shouldn’t cost more for my wife and daughter to travel to Ottawa by train than by car, but it does. A round-trip for two on our nation’s rail carrier set us back about $400. That same trip, along with the ability to travel around, visit the city, and even head to Montreal, would cost us under $200 in gas by car – and my son and I would be able to come along.

Is there any sense in advocating for the use of a service when the service inconveniences us? We need to stop thinking that people are going to choose what’s best for the environment over what’s apparently best for themselves. As a society we’re willing to sacrifice some comforts in the name of altruism, but our environmental benevolence only goes so far.

So how can this work? How can we leverage economics to benefit the environment? Take the example of energy efficient light bulbs. At first, we can look at their price and suffer some sticker shock as they’re so much more expensive than their incandescent cousins. But a $5 energy-efficient bulb, which could last up to seven years, turns out to be much cheaper over the long run than the department-store standards, costing $2 a pack, but needed to be replaced anywhere from seven to 15 times over that same time frame.

There are very real cost advantages immediately displayed – not to mention the reduction that comes from lowered electricity usage and hydro bills.

Don’t tell me how much greenhouse gas we’re emitting by idling for over 20 seconds – tell us how much gas and money we save. Don’t tell us how bad pesticides and chemical fertilizers are for the environment, show us how much cheaper it is to go natural with mulching and compost – and how our lawns can look just as good.

For us to succeed at the One-Tonne Challenge the burden of environmentalism has to be taken off of our hearts and placed squarely where it will have the most impact – in our pocketbooks.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Not So Black and White

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

I’ve always considered myself colourblind when it comes to issues of race – but maybe my vision’s not as pure as I think.

Oddly enough, this revelation came from watching an episode of Lost. Without getting too involved in the plot, an older black woman has been expressing her certainty that her husband was still alive, despite being in the back of the plane when it tore apart. Recently we met new characters, survivors from the back, and one – a slightly older black man, I assumed was her husband.

In fact, it was an older white man who turned out to be her husband. And I never even considered the possibility.

Was I outraged at the depiction of an interracial marriage on TV? No. It doesn’t bother me in the least. I honestly believe we’re all the same on the inside, and the exterior doesn’t matter. But what bothers me is that I assumed that the black male would be the black woman’s husband – never entertaining the possibility of a mixed-race union.

Why is it that I can pass thousands of same-colour couples, both black and white, and not notice them, while I notice the mixed-race couples? I don’t judge, don’t discriminate – and really don’t care about these people and I go on my merry way. But why do I notice them – not the others?

You know who I blame? Spike Lee. Well, not just Spike Lee, but I blame those who consistently reinforce the negative aspects of our society and continue to hold up race as a divisive issue.

I understand that, for some people, race is an issue and there are deep-rooted discriminatory beliefs that need to be address and eradicated. But the flip side of this is that this sort of activism plants a seed in the minds of those whose thoughts aren’t infested by this insidious racism. Because the mirror has been held up to society so long, we’re noticing the reflections as aberrations, as opposed to the natural unions and co-existence they should be.

So how do we balance the need to educate those who continue to hold on tightly to the reins of ignorance and steer them to enlightenment, with the damaging effects that shining a spotlight on these issues can have for those of us who don’t consider colour and race an issue? Are activists, who rightly strive for a day when race and religion are not an issue, compromising their ideals and dreams by making race and religion something to be noticed – an issue, however benign, in the minds of those who previously wouldn’t even factor them in our day-to-day life?

I wasn’t brought up to discriminate and I can say I have a collection of friends that span a variety of ethnic and religious backgrounds. It’s not something of which I boast, or which I’m proud, simply because it’s just what it is. It’s not something I think about. Nor is race or religion a determining factor in how I develop my social relationships. There are so many other reasons not to like someone that using the colour of their skin, the God they choose (or choose not) to worship, or their country of origin, just seems so petty. They are my friends, and I’m proud to have them as friends – independent of their country of origin.

In discussing this issue with others, I spoke of how in my life I’ve had a number of friends of various ethnicities. But as I thought further, I remembered even more that came from different countries and religions. I didn’t think of them as my black friend, or my Bengali friend – they were just friends. Their colour and creed weren’t an issue, nor were they of interest to me, except as an opportunity to explore and learn about another culture. But these are ancillary benefits – the main benefit was, and is, friendship.

I hate the fact that people will say, “Oh, I’m blessed to have good black friends like…” or “I have a lot of Hispanic friends…” in their conversation. I’m blessed to have these people as friends first and foremost. Their ethnicities are ancillary to our friendship. Of course, when it comes to dinner, I appreciate their backgrounds more – I’m not going to say no to a good Lebanese or Greek meal.

I look no further than my daughter, who will soon be turning four. She has had a friend for a couple of years now, who happens to be black. But instead of remarking on the colour of her skin, what impressed upon my daughter was that she had curly hair. To this day, her skin colour has never come up – it just is what it is.

And that’s the way it should be. And that’s the way it can be. As a writer, I love adjectives, but not when it comes to describing people. The best description I can give to anyone — whether black, white, gay, straight, Muslim, Jewish, Atheist, or Christian – is friend — and friend alone.

But the mirror to our society as a whole has been held up — and I don’t like how it’s affected me. Like a funhouse mirror, we’ve created aberrations where, for many, only a clear reflection would normally appear.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Our Empty Words Are Only Spoken in English

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

For an allegedly bilingual country, we do a horrible job of showing it. And it’s time that we, as a country, literally put our money where our mouths are.

The Canadian government has set the goal of having half of its students graduate bilingual by 2013. It’s a lofty goal, but one that will never happen unless changes are made to the curriculum. French language instruction in this country, from coast to coast, must be mandatory for the duration of our students schooling.

Forget the fact that a significant number of students in Canada drop French as soon as its no longer compulsory – the quality of French that’s being taught is deplorable. Not to condemn our hard-working teachers, but they’re just not equipped to handle the demands that teaching a second language requires.

Simply put, our French teachers can’t speak French.

Oh sure, they have the rudimentary knowledge and they’ve got the basic accreditation required to do a passable job. But they don’t have the skill or expertise to help our children succeed. A building is only as strong as its foundation, and the quality and level of French that’s being taught in the elementary school system is deplorable.

My wife, whose first language is French, and I (functionally bilingual) have had the displeasure of reviewing our bilingual son’s French homework since he switched to English school. We could accept the rudimentary level being taught, as one would assume that everyone’s starting from zero. What we couldn’t accept were the mistakes: glaring errors, wrong words being used, incorrect grammar, and poor agreements. And then we wonder why our kids can’t speak French. There’s a problem when, in the past, our son’s French teacher has refused to speak to my wife and I in that language.

And it gets no better. Coming out of high school, our students may think they can speak French. But when they come face to face with an actual francophone, they’re unable to carry on a conversation. Having come through the Ontario high school system and taking two French OACs, I know first-hand that the majority of my fellow students were capable of conjugating a verb – but putting it into practice in anything more than a basic conversation was beyond their scope and capabilities.

Compounding the problem is that there’s really no perceived need for Anglophone students to take French if they’re not living in Quebec. I’d hazard a guess that, other than the remote getting stuck on the French CBC channel, their exposure to the language of Molière is fairly limited. As such, there’s no impetus for our students to take the learning of a second language seriously.

Unfortunately, all this does is further fracture our country. Many English speakers can’t understand the frustration that Quebecers feel when travelling outside of la belle province. They don’t understand the anger, resentment, and feeling of a lack of respect that comes from living in a country that, on one hand, professes to be bilingual, while on the other hand doesn’t practice what it preaches.

Now living in Ontario, I find it embarrassing that when my Francophone in-laws come to visit, they’re unable to find anyone to converse in their own language. They are forced to converse in English, whereas my experience has been that the opposite is rarely true. That’s Ontario! A neighbouring province to Quebec! Is there any wonder why some Quebecers don’t feel Canadian when their own country makes little to no effort – and places no premium – on being able to communicate with a significant segment of our society.

Due to the fact that they’re living in a region surrounded by over 300 million English speakers, most Quebecers will have a rudimentary understanding of English, and – unless you’re extremely rude – will make an effort to find common grounds for communications. Yet we treat French as an afterthought in the rest of our country.

The more rampant xenophobes will cling to the argument that we don’t make the same accommodations for other ethnicities, but that misses the point that this country was founded and flourished as a bilingual nation – an amalgamation of English and French to create a new Canada. Just as my expectation for living in Japan would be that I would be required to learn Japanese, so too is there an expectation that immigrants to this country be able to converse in English or French. But woe be to the person who chooses French thinking that knowledge of that language will open any doors outside of Quebec.

If we’re truly committed to being a bilingual country – and the reasons and benefits are numerous, while the counter-arguments are non-existent – then we need to invest in our future. French must be mandatory until high school graduation. And the quality must improve. We must either hire native speakers, or require more than a couple of courses for French instruction certification.

Otherwise, we’re just paying lip service to the cause of bilingualism — and our empty words are only intelligible in English.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved