Author Archives: Jay Menard

A Lack of Pioneering Vision

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Monday night’s meeting didn’t just see London City Council toss an extra $85,000 onto the pile that is the Fanshawe Pioneer Village – they managed to waste $300,000 by providing a brief stay of execution for the facility.

And hopefully it’ll be the last $300,000 wasted. It will be if Council has the guts to finally cut bait next year.

In a Utopian world, it’d be wonderful to support each and every artistic and historic venture that enriches the Forest City. However, the reality of the situation is that perhaps we’ve come to a time where we need to take a cold, hard look at what we have, and make the tough decisions required to maximize our return on our investment – and to stop chasing after a dream that will never come to fruition.

Now, before I get branded a cold-hearted right-winger who only looks at the bottom line, you should know that I’ve been on the left wing more often than Bobby Hull in his heyday! But what good is funding a service that people have shown, through their apathy, they don’t want.

The only time that the Pioneer Village arouses passion in the community is during the annual “Save the Village” scenarios. Where is this passion during the year? Can you show me where this vocal community that would hate to see such a valuable component of our community disappear has actually been backing up their words with their wallets? Perhaps if their support extended beyond the emotional to the financial, the Fanshawe Pioneer Village wouldn’t be trying to stave off the axe each and every year.

We’re not talking about a site that’s unique in Canada. Heck, I Googled “Pioneer Village” and had to wade through five pages before I even hit on a mention of Fanshawe Pioneer Village – and that was from a Free Press article! There are dozens of villages out there, so we’re not talking about eliminating the last of its kind.

And I propose we don’t totally eliminate it. We simply take a concerted look at what we have in London and try to maximize its impact.

London has more pressing needs than a Pioneer Village that doesn’t get support. It has a downtown that’s grip on survival is tenuous at best. I often walk the streets of Downtown London and see the empty storefronts, or the constantly changing vendors. We have the potential markets created by the John Labatt Centre’s events. We have a Market that needs to better market itself. And we have a rich history that many of our very own citizens know nothing about – much less care.

But, seeing as Easter’s just around the corner, what if we decide to put all our eggs in one basket, so to speak. What if we consolidate our efforts and make Downtown London the focal point of the city’s history, culture, and – dare I say it – future?

Tutankhamen’s tomb is no less valuable or interesting to people because it’s been moved from Egypt and has toured the world, so relocating a few artifacts from the outskirts of London to a centralized display isn’t sacrilegious. Why not conscript some of those empty storefronts on Dundas, or rent out some areas of Galleria London and turn Downtown London into a living, breathing celebration of everything that London was, is, and can be?

Why can’t we intersperse our city’s history amongst its present? Co-ordinate efforts between Museum London, the Public Library, and our archeological caretakers and give people a reason to visit downtown. In doing so, people will hopefully be attracted to the Core, will patronize its shops, and draw new investment to an area that sorely needs it.

Obviously the status quo isn’t working, and has not for many years in the case of Fanshawe Pioneer Village. Our city and its heritage is something of which we should be proud. But it’s hard to feel pride, when we don’t know enough about our past.

A co-ordinated, consolidated effort to create a downtown core that’s rich in history, vibrant in its present, and optimistic about its future should be worth more to the City than throwing away money at a model that doesn’t work.

And then the responsibility would fall upon the shoulders that deserve it – those of the people of London. If they don’t support something that’s been tailor-made to meet their needs, then we have no one to blame but ourselves for what we lose

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Do We Say Beat It to a Thriller?

2 Replies

By Jason Menard

Is it still OK to like Michael Jackson? That decision will probably be made once a jury of his peers renders a verdict on allegations of inappropriate activities with children? But the question is should a guilty or innocent decision make a difference?

To a large extent in our society celebrities are given a get out of jail free card, cashing in on the goodwill generated by their various talents. Our admiration for their abilities also seems to foster an exaggerated gift of the benefit of doubt.

We live in a society where one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. But, let’s face it, if the average guy showed up on TV, proudly boasting that he sleeps with young boys – but there’s nothing untoward about it, chances are we’d be avoiding this guy like the plague. And I know that my son wouldn’t be having any overnighters at the guy’s house.

And that’s the general reaction we’d have for the average Joe. Not the eccentric, changes-his-face-more-often-than-Paul-Martin-changes-his-mind, former child prodigy that is Michael Jackson.

But, behind the trial, behind the eccentricities, behind the media furor lies an artist and his art. And it’s the appreciation of this art that may be irretrievably lost in all of this, if it hasn’t already been damaged beyond repair.

Is it still OK to like Michael Jackson? The difficulty of this question is magnified by the simple fact that there are two ways to read it. Are we discussing Michael Jackson, the man, who is alleged to have personal demons that are reprehensible to society as a whole? Or are we looking at Michael Jackson, the industry, and a body of work and expressed talent that has rarely been seen.

I’ll admit it — I own Thriller. And I know there are at least one or two of you out there that do to, seeing as he’s sold about a kagillion copies of this album. As a child of the 80’s I grew up listening to his music, watching his talent manifest itself in ways that I had never seen. Listening to his work with the Jackson Five introduced me to the wonderful world of Motown. His performance at Motown’s 25 th – where he unveiled the Moonwalk and tossed his hat into the crowd – is an image I’ll never forget. Heck, I even owned a Glitter Glove!

But will that legacy of music, the influence he’s had on a generation of performers who followed, the innovation he displayed in his music videos, be tainted should a guilty verdict be rendered? Do we retroactively diminish superhuman achievement in light of less-than-human behaviour?

A case can be made in the affirmative when we look at O.J. Simpson. Not guilty criminally, but found culpable in a civil court, The Juice is looked upon as a pariah as he continues his search for The Real Killers in the bunkers and on the fairways of North America. And, while it’s easy to dismiss his talents on the Silver Screen, we accomplishments on the gridiron are now in question. Undoubtedly one of the great running backs of his time, it takes a brave sportswriter to acknowledge his talent in a public forum.

However, our celebrity worship also takes us to the other extreme. When rape allegations against Kobe Bryant were first brought to the fore, thousands of ravenous supporters rallied to his side. These people knew nothing more about Kobe than what they saw on the court, or what his public relations consultants and advertising contracts showcased, but they were willing to throw their wholehearted support behind him! I don’t think these people would do the same for the average guy in their community charged with rape – in fact, they’d probably trot out the old “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire” adage and presume guilt.

As our society is increasingly exposed to the trials and tribulations of celebrity justice, so too will this issue have to be addressed. If Robert Blake is convicted of murdering his wife, does that change how we view his performance in In Cold Blood? Yet, modern rap artists gain welcome street cred for behaviour that we’d vilify in the general public.

When it comes to art, should it matter whether or not we approve of the artist? Does singing along to Bad mean that I tacitly support alleged pedophilia? Were my childhood attempts at doing the Moonwalk the subconscious modern equivalent of goose-stepping in time with a malevolent leader? Is all the good brought about by We Are the World lost by allegations of reprehensible behaviour?

I’d argue that’s not the case. It is not a case of the ends justifying the means. In fact, one should have nothing to do with the other. If Michael Jackson is convicted, then he should be locked up and left to dance his way around the general population of Cell Block 1. And the only singing we should hear from him is at his parole review. But regardless of the outcome, our appreciation of his past musical achievements shouldn’t be coloured by our opinion of the man. The art should be separate from the artist – but I have a feeling that won’t be the case.

Perhaps the Jackson trial will set the benchmark for how future popular opinion will be defined. And, in the future, we may have to hold off on our appreciation of our favourite artists until enough time has elapsed to ensure that there are no skeletons waiting to fall out of their closet.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Pride or a Paycheque?

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Pride or a paycheque? To which force should athletes be beholden? And is there really a right answer in all of this?

The Dominik Hasek situation at this year’s winter Olympic games in Torino, Italy just added a few more sleepless nights to the schedules of National Hockey League general managers and coaches. Their greatest fears were realized with the slight strain to the Czech goalie’s adductor muscle.

It’s the age old question – do you play for your country or your employer? The easy answer, especially for guys like me who don’t have millions riding on every shift, is that the pride of playing for your country outweighs any financial gain. But the realist in me knows that I’m talking out of idealism and national pride.

Things have changed since 1972 – the watershed mark for national representation. During that Canada-USSR summit series, a nation stood riveted as “our guys” faced off against “them.” This series was less about on-ice prowess than off-ice idealism. What should have been simple exhibitions between athletes from two countries quickly evolved into an on-ice battle for social and political superiority.

And this us-versus-them mentality continued on into the 80s and every contest was a pitched battle where ideals were fought for, not with words or guns, but rather with sticks and pucks. These were events and every player: whether they were Canadian, American, Soviet, or other nationality, was willing to drop everything to play/fight for their country.

Alas, with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the us-versus-them nature of the games just seemed to matter less and less. How could we, as Canadians, stoke the flames of societal passion when our TVs were flooded with images of displaced Russians lining up for hours just for a loaf of bread? When the entire Eastern Bloc was struggling through the chaos of overwhelming societal and cultural reform, attaching cultural superiority to a hockey victory began to reek of Schadenfreude. It was hard to gear up for a Cold War battle when one side’s supporters ran the very real risk of freezing to death.

Starting with Sergei Priakin in 1989 and continuing with the arrival of the former members of the KLM line — Vladimir Krutov, Igor Larionov, and Sergei Makarov – to the NHL landscape, our once on-ice enemies became just another hockey player. Former ideological enemies were now playing side-by-side with North Americans for the common goal of winning a Stanley Cup.

And with that, International Competition became less of a passion and more of a source of pride. With players free to play anywhere in the world, international competitions like the Canada Cup (and its successor, the World Cup) became the location to see the best of the best play against each other. But instead of ideological supremacy being at stake, nothing more than bragging rights were on the line.

Now average NHL players from around the world are earning healthy salaries to ply their trade. And, despite the cachet of the Olympics or international competition, the National Hockey League is still considered the highest level of play. The Stanley Cup is truly hockey’s Holy Grail. So, for a Dominik Hasek, he has to balance his loyalty to the Czech Republic with his loyalty to his regular employers – the Ottawa Senators – who fill his bank statement with all those zeroes.

Despite any national pride, to NHL general managers the game is a product and the players are their assets. While winning a gold medal is nice, remaining gainfully employed is even nicer. The best way to keep their jobs is to win games – and the easiest way to win games is to have their best players playing at their top level.

That’s why there’s always a risk of allowing players to participate in these games. Sure, there’s insurance, but that only covers the financial loss – no insurance can replace the effect of a top performer on a squad.

For NHLers, whose careers are generally short, they have to balance their desire to play for their country with the risk of undermining their long-term ability to earn a top-level salary. Certainly injuries can happen anywhere, but running the risk during a game in which you’re paid by your employer seems more acceptable than any risk assumed in what is essentially and unpaid exhibition.

Pride is a very powerful force and I’m pleased to see so many athletes sacrifice themselves for the honour of playing for their country. But as international competitions become less and less relevant, the day may not be too far away when a player’s loyalty to his country is superseded by his responsibility to his employer.

And, as people just trying to make a living, will we really be able to blame them when they make that choice?

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Aging — It’s as Plain as the Nose on Your Face

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

It finally happened. The last, slender thread that tied me to the thought of youthfulness has been severed. And the instrument that finally cut the cord? A nose-hair trimmer.

I’ve jumped the shark. Really, when you’ve made the purchase of something to remove what is delicately referred to as “unsightly hair,” there’s no turning back. Although I’m not yet at the point where I’m buying sans-a-belt slacks that come up over my navel, I’m certainly much closer today than I was last week.

Physically, I’m still young – or youngish, at least. At only 31 I really don’t have a right to be complaining about aging. In fact, those of you older than me are probably thinking – rightfully so – that I should quit my bellyachin’ and be happy with what I’ve got.

And I am… It’s just that an emotional threshold has been crossed. I’ve had friends who found turning 30 difficult, but I was not one of them. At 30 – and even at 31, until what I’d like to refer to as the Remington Incident – I embraced my youthfulness. But now, emotionally, I’ve come to a crossroads in my life. It seems that getting to the point where shaving and hair cuts are no longer enough in terms of grooming is nature’s way of letting you know where you stand.

I handled the graying at the temples with aplomb, turning to Maurice Richard for inspiration (“I keep a touch of gray at the sides – my wife likes it!) I battled the bulge and am now in better physical shape than I was at 21. And while marriage and two children have matured me, I was still able to retain a semblance of youthfulness in my mind.

But now that’s changed – and it all started so innocently. Recently, walking through one of those ubiquitous grocery store/mega stores looking for a hair dryer I picked up a “personal trimmer,” and looked at it with amusement. That was, at least, until my wife peered over my shoulder and said, “That’s a great idea, you should get one of those!”

Now, I’ve never been overly hirsute. I’ve never been afflicted with the monobrow and my back is relatively free of hair. Sure, I’ve got chest hair but nothing out of the ordinary. And maybe my 5:00 shadow tends to show up a little earlier. I’ve been able to make jokes about my appearance for years – saying the wisps of hair that grace my neckline are, in fact, reinforcements on the way to battle the receding hair line! But when my wife suggested that I was in need of extra grooming, I was a bit taken aback.

I tried to laugh it off, but she persisted, her delicate finger pointing towards my previously pristine (or so I thought) proboscis. It was at that moment, with a simple gesture of caring for my appearance that those last vestiges of youthfulness drifted away. I had reached the point of no return.

Really, I should have seen it coming. If I haven’t fully embraced the concept of metrosexuality, I am aware of it presence and I don’t go out of my way to ignore its teachings. I’ve watched Queer Eye for the Straight Guy and taken a few mental notes. But I was blinded by this follicular revelation.

In fact, my wife’s even tried to gracefully prepare me for this moment. A few months back, she caught sight of an overly-ambitious eyebrow hair that didn’t know its place in life. I had always assumed that eyebrows were like a little socialist collective – all working together on an equal level to do whatever their job it is to do. But no, one decided to aspire to be something greater than it was – perhaps looking for a promotion to the scalp – and needed to be plucked. And there, I thought I was done.

But no, The Remington Incident (as I type this, it’s growing in importance to me – hence the capitalization of the T) begat the savage pillaging of the facial hair. It seems my socialist collective of eyebrows spawned a few breakaway republics which just didn’t do. And my wife, seeing my acquiescence to the concept of more fastidious personal grooming, leapt upon me with tweezers in hand.

Alas, I can see this is just the beginning of another – much more painful — stage in my life. If I can adjust to the concept of self-inflicted pain (is there no better way to remove hair than forcefully plucking it from its happy home?), I can adjust to my transition out of youth.

Because now the nose knows the truth. We go through many stages of life, many of which we mark in terms of achievements: a first day at school, getting your drivers’ licence, voting, a first home – but maybe a better indicator of where we are is as plain as the nose hair on our face!

And don’t think I haven’t started to keep an eye on my ears – I’m not ready for a mid-life crisis just yet!

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

A Matter of Love

3 Replies

By Jason Menard

It’s at times like these when I’m embarrassed to call myself a heterosexual.

Here we are again, debating the validity of gay marriage with our political representatives debating how they will vote. Once again, we are being overwhelmed by a swarm of political rhetoric and religious posturing. And we have our elected representatives deluged with e-mails on the topic.

But somewhere in all of this, common sense and humanity have been thrown out the window.

We live in an allegedly tolerant society. In fact, the framework of Canada has been developed on the basis of a cultural mosaic philosophy – wherein we accept all comers and encourage them to embrace their ethnicity, history, and individuality. This, if anything, is our Canadian identity and is one of the largest things that set us apart from our neighbours to the south and their Melting Pot mentality.

Thus, if we are willing, and in fact encouraged to be tolerant to other races, religions, and creeds, why does the same courtesy not extend to the concept of sexuality?

Truly ask yourself what’s the worst thing that can come about from gay marriage? Where does the tear in our country’s moral fabric come from when you allow two people of any gender to express their love and devotion to each other before their friends, family – and should they choose – their God of choice?

And should a gay couple decide to embrace a child into their lives, I say more power to them! More than a male and female role model, children truly need to grow up in an environment of loving and caring. We’ve seen enough “ideal” heterosexual couples screw up their kids through neglect, violence, and anger to prove that simply being “straight” is not the best criterion for parenthood.

We have a responsibility as a progressive-thinking society to allow everyone, regardless of race, gender, religion, and sexuality to enjoy the same benefits. Anything less is discrimination. It wasn’t so long ago that our neighbours south of the border had laws on the books banning interracial marriages for many of the same reasons that gay marriages have become an issue.

Dominion over marriage laws does not fall under any religion’s umbrella. The concept of marriage predates Christianity and, in our society, for a marriage to be legal it must be registered with the appropriate government department. Until otherwise those offices are supposed to be secular in nature.

So, that being considered, where is the secular reason for opposing homosexual marriages? And if two people of any gender want to enter into a legal arrangement to share their life to them, then I say more power to them. What makes us human is the ability to love.

If we choose to deny others the right to express that love – and by extension their very humanity — what does that say about us?

Simply being heterosexual does not provide a person with a position of moral superiority. In fact, history has proven to us that none of us entitled to stand as a moral judge of others based on race, sexuality, gender, religion, or political leaning.

As well, using the disapproval of another’s lifestyle is certainly a treacherous footing from which to stand on. There are no hard and fast moral rules to which we all, within this great Canadian cultural mosaic, ascribe. As such, one person’s delight is another’s disgust – and it can work both ways.

I have several gay friends and family members and I grew up in an environment of tolerance. As a parent, one of the things I’m most proud of is that my children are growing up in that same sort of environment where sexuality, race, and religious affiliation hold no weight on the value of the person. We stress that it’s the person’s character that’s important.

But what message are my wife and I sending to our son when we tell him not to tell others that some of the people that he cares most deeply about are gay? How do we explain that some of our friends aren’t “out” to the greater community because there are people that would look at them and react to them differently? What do I say to him when he comes home and tells us about how the kids at school are using derogatory terms to describe gay people or picking on kids who they accuse of being homosexual?

How do I tell him that we still live in a society where many remain closeted out of fear and in reaction to others’ ignorance? How do I tell him that being gay is not wrong when our country’s leaders are still debating whether homosexuals are allowed to enjoy the same rights and freedoms as heterosexuals?

Gay unions won’t diminish the concept of marriage. But this continued discrimination of homosexuals certainly shakes our concept of humanity to its core.

The squeaky wheel gets the grease and if people are in favour of supporting basic human rights, they should let their MP know. My own MP has stated that he will be voting with his conscience – but what our elected officials know is that they were not elected to represent their own wills, but rather the wills of their constituents. And if our country is truly so divided, then the decision should not rest with only our elected MPs – we need to have a national plebiscite to truly hear the voice of the people.

That way, we can truly hear from all Canadians – not just those who shout the loudest.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved