Category Archives: Lifestyle (MC Archive)

Lifestyle-related columns that appeared on Jason Menard’s previous Web site, Menard Communications.

An Approved Form of Hostage Taking?

3 Replies

By Jason Menard

Mar. 8, 2006 — In general, we don’t negotiate with terrorists that take hostages, even if it means risking the lives of those being held captive. So, with that being said, why do we continue to condone and validate the use of strike tactics by unions as an effective way to earn concessions at the bargaining table, when all they’re doing is holding the public hostage for their own demands?

Now, I’m not comparing the average union member to your average Al Qaeda member, but the mentality behind the negotiations for both should be the same. In international politics, the idea of cutting deal with hostage-takers is universally panned due to the fact that once you’ve caved into one terrorist, the flood gates will open as the tactic will now be viewed as an effective way to get what you want. So, no matter how painful it may be, we refuse to give into terrorists and do our best to prove that hostage-taking is counterproductive.

So why do we treat picketers any different? Is it because they’re our friends and family? They’re regular Joes and Janes like us? Is it because we can sympathize with their cause and have a latent mistrust for Big Business? In the end, are their tactics any different?

Why not ask the college students of Ontario if they currently feel their futures are being held hostage for someone else’s gain? How about the people of Ontario who sat on pins and needles wondering whether or not the public employees would walk out and leave them with piled-up garbage? And let’s not forget the citizens of London, ON who were faced with a one-day walkout of the emergency room doctors back in December.

All in all, it adds up to one group of citizens impacting another group of citizens for something they’re not directly involved in. For students who have enough stress in their lives, they don’t need to be wondering whether their work to date will be in vain. Yet, the union feels that these students are effective pawns in their high-stakes game of chess.

And why not? In the end, management or the government will cave, they’ll go back to the table, and concessions will be made. Strike tactics will be once again validated and the gun will go back in the holster one more time, ready to be drawn at the next labour impasse.

From an outsiders’ perspective it seems that unions of all stripes are all-too-willing to play the strike card early on in the negotiations, whether or not it’s valid. In the case of the public employees’ threatened strike, we were looking at an illegal action that ended up getting rewarded by forcing the sides back to the table.

Perhaps illegal means something different in Unionese. I know if I do something illegal, there are punishments and ramifications. Apparently if a union member does something illegal, they get rewarded for their actions. It just doesn’t seem right.

There are those who say that unions have had their day and they’ve overstayed their welcome. Despite my frustration with holding the public hostage for strikes, I don’t agree with that assessment. Unions do have their place to ensure that employees are being treated fairly in their place of work. They also have a mandate to represent their members fairly and responsibly. The role of the union may have to change. Do the laid-off workers at Ford in St. Thomas feel that the concessions they earned in the past were worth where they are now? How do the union leaders keep their jobs, while their charges are forced to find employment elsewhere?

As a whole, today’s citizen is more media-savvy and aware than ever before. Through the information explosion, we are privy to more information, more quickly, and from more sources. We are better informed to form our own opinion and unions must use the power of public opinion to their benefit.

Be aggressive with your campaigning to curry the favour of the public and they will support you in your efforts. Make us the king-makers in negotiations and we’ll fight for you. Use the public as nothing more than pawns in this negotiating chess game and you’ll find that the gavel wielded by the court of public opinion will come down hard.

Times have changed, the global marketplace has changed, and it’s time that unions change with it. Taking the public hostage should no longer be an effective way to gain concessions. But until a government or employer decides to stand up for principle, then the average citizen is always at risk of becoming a pawn.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

The Human Tragedy of Spam

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Hello, my name is Jay, and I have a small penis.

At least, that’s what my e-mail tells me. On top of that, it’s a small penis that underperforms, judging by the deluge of solicitations for Viagra and phallus-enhancement utilities that I receive. But, just to let you know, this stunning revelation has yet to stop the deluge of willing women just itching to either meet me or perform on line for my gratification.

And that tiny member should soon be dwarfed by a rapidly burgeoning bank account. It seems that I’m a prime candidate for any number of politically challenged foreign dignitaries and multi-billionaires who have been soliciting my help to transfer enormous amounts of funds into my account.

Yes, if money and power are the ultimate aphrodisiacs, I should be living on easy street any time now. With just a few clicks of my mouse I could be a wealthy tripod, with a harem of imported Eastern European brides by my side and just-of-age teens shaking their moneymakers on my screen.

Or, more likely, I’ll just delete all these messages, unread, unreplied to, and quickly forgotten. After all, what would my wife think?

Despite doing my best to prevent Spammers from harvesting my e-mail address, I still find my e-mail account’s Spam folder regularly filled with this type of unwanted solicitations. So what can we, as end-users, do? Unfortunately, nothing at all. We can choose to wring our hands in frustration and rue the day that we created this e-mail account, or we can laugh it off as a small price to pay for free, instant communication.

Spam won’t stop until Spam stops being effective. Obviously, out of the millions of solicitations that go out, a certain percentage of people are clicking through and – more importantly – buying the wares that are presented to them. What seems ludicrous to the majority of us obviously strikes a chord with a certain segment of society. Whether they’re looking for love in all the wrong places, or dreaming of a get-rich scheme, there are people for whom Spam is a welcome solicitation.

Look at the topics that junk mail focus on: sex and money, the two topics that can create an intense feeling of insecurity for some people. Whether it’s penis size or pocketbook size, there is a significant subsection of our society who feel emasculated in this world due to a perceived or real lack of both. So, when an anonymous e-mail professing quick fixes for either situation, those who are most vulnerable to this type of persuasion are most willing to take a chance.

Many of us laugh at the Spam e-mails we receive, revelling in their grammatically challenged subject lines or schoolyard bluntness. Yet, we’re not the target audience. Those who are sitting at their computer, feeling deficient either in the pants or the pocketbook, or those whose greatest source of intimacy comes from the warmth of the screen upon which these images are flickering are the target.

The Internet has given rise to a new generation of technological Snake Oil salespeople, looking to make a cheap buck in the same manner that their Old West forebears did – by playing on the naiveté and dreams of a bunch of Rubes. But instead of hocking their tonic at local fairs and travelling circuses, they do it from the comfort of their living room – with the world as their audience.

The great irony of the Internet is that while it’s made the world far more inclusive and accessible to everyone, it has also heightened our sense of isolation. For all the increase in contact through Instant Messaging and e-mail, we’ve reduced our actual face-to-face communication. We are interacting more with the world, all the while feeling less attached to it.

That sense of anonymity breeds loneliness and insecurity for some. Talking on-line is so much easier than meeting in person, and, as such, it increases the anxiety of actual real-time social interaction. For some, their inadequacies become amplified by the simple lack of human contact.

Why should we be surprised when people react to the promise of a better life with minimal effort? That’s what Spammers rely on. Those who are most vulnerable will be the ones most likely to act.

So, while many of us will either laugh about or rail against the intrusion of these ridiculous e-mails, perhaps we should take a moment and remember that we’re getting these messages because, targeted to a vulnerable sub-section of our society, they work. And that’s the saddest statement of all.

Remember, while we may be navigating our way along the Information Superhighway, there are a number of people out there just looking for the on-ramp to join in – any way they can get it.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Reality Bites

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Feb. 21, 2006 — The perils of watching reality television include the simple fact that the more you watch, the more familiar it all becomes. And, when it comes to reality, one thing’s for sure – good things don’t come in threes.

Trying to get caught in the draft of the unexplicably popular American Idol (as proud of a Canadian as I am, I refuse to even refer to that Ben Mulroney-helmed disaster of a knock-off to which we’re subjected), two other shows have joined the fray: the “pick-some-words-out-of-a-hat-and-throw-them-on-a-page twins, Dancing with the Stars and Skating with Celebrities.

Both shows enjoy a sort of Surreal Life cachet of faded stars and B-list performers stepping out of their element and performing on a national stage. And, unlike the karaoke-quality wannabes that turn out for Idol, these dancers and skaters are able to instill a sense of conviviality with the viewers due to the fact that any of us can imagine ourselves in a similar fish-out-of-water scenario. Whereas the Idols are convinced they are the world’s gift to singing, Dancing and Skating’s participants appear to truly enjoy the experience, revel in the learning process, and grow.

Unfortunately, all good things don’t come in threes, and the inexplicable decision to replicate the judging tribunal on each show reveals either a lack of creativity or a calculated tweaking of the audience’s nerve endings in order to artificially stimulate a response.

All three shows employ archetypal judges that fit into three categories: the vapid, schmoopy, “I love everyone” soft-sell, female judge (Paula Abdul, the saccharine overloaded Dorothy Hamill, and Carrie Ann Inaba, best known for her stellar role as Fook You in Austin Powers: Goldmember, and her seeming dislike for anyone from the female race); the catch-phrase ridden, animated foil, middle-ground judge (the Aallllight Dawg-repeating Randy Jackson, the “what clever play on words did I think up this week to wedge into a performance review” Bruno Toniol, and the man who somehow mixes blandness with hyperbole, Mark Lund.

And, of course, there’s the third judge. Snarky, to-the-point, and British: the archetype, Simon Cowell, and his ex-pat brethren Len Goodman and John Nicks. These are the, albeit acerbic, voices of reason. They cut through the niceties and say what needs to be said – and, of course, a worthy competitor would take constructive criticism to heart and improve.

But that’s not the way these shows work. Taking a cue from our cultural over-sensitivity, the studio audience vociferously boos whenever a negative syllable is uttered. Apparently we’re not allowed to have people who are worse at something than another. To these fans, these shows should be nothing more than televised T-ball, where everyone gets a turn and no-one loses.

Or maybe it’s just another way to rub the British’s faces in the whole American revolution. You can have your cantankerous judge who speaks the truth, but they’ll assert their American dominance to thwart the judges’ nefarious cultural colonialism.

Want proof? Master P. Need more? Bruce Jenner. Again? How about any of the American Idol rejects who inexplicably outlive their usefulness at the expense of audibly more talented performers? And what’s the best way to ensure that these less-than-shining lights stay on the show? Make sure that the British judge either chastises the competitor or chides the audience for keeping them in the competition.

American voters hate being told what to do. Being told by a stuffy Englishman with an attitude? Horrific. I mean, the only thing I can think many Americans would find worse is being condescended to by a judge from France.

Alas, the joy in watching these shows doesn’t come from the idea that you’re going to see something groundbreaking. What people like is the familiarity. That’s why the rosters, for the most part, are riddled with known faces from our past, that’s why the songs used are non-offensive standards culled from history, and that’s why the sets and judging are all identically formatted. It’s electronic comfort programming at its best and its worst.

In the end, we want everyone to hug, everyone to be friends, and everyone to congratulate each other for just giving their all! And if it takes booing down a surly British judge, well then so be it.

Now, if only we could figure out how to export Ben Mulroney to one of these shows…

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

God Should Never Be An Editor

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

In this culturally diverse world where oceans can be spanned with just the click of a mouse, what obligation do we have to ensuring cultural sensitivity – and where is the line between commentary and cruelty drawn?

This is a question that has arisen again with the publication of editorial cartoons in the Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten. The cartoons, which depicted the Islamic prophet Muhammad wearing a turban shaped like a bomb with a lit fuse, have drawn the ire of Muslims around the world and has led to violent demonstrations.

Let’s move beyond the paradox that is Muslims reacting with violence to a cartoon that was designed to depict them as a violent people. Let’s look at the issue of responsibility. Islamic law forbids any depiction of the prophet Muhammad in order to prevent idolatry. But should we expect a newspaper in a non-Muslim country to adhere to the beliefs and tenets of another religion?

The answer is yes – and no.

Obviously Jyllands Posten has to consider the fact that some of its readership will be Muslim and should treat them with the same respect that they would any other religion. To imply that all adherents to a religion are violent is stereotyping at its worst – and certainly wouldn’t be accepted if the image was of an avaricious person of Jewish decent. Given that, we can question the sensitivity, but not the motivation of the paper.

In their attempt to make a commentary about a certain sub-section of a religious group that bastardizes the teaching of the Quran, they unfairly painted all Muslims with the same broad brushstrokes. However, their depiction still falls into the realm of commentary.

It is when other right-wing papers decide to reprint the cartoons as a show of solidarity to freedom of the press that the line is crossed into cruelty. It is one thing to publish something that offends a segment of your readership without knowing – it is something different entirely when you do so knowing that a segment of the population has already expressed their displeasure. It is especially heinous when you choose to publish them for no other reason than to incite anger. The publication of these editorial cartoons in these papers was done only to support the rights of free speech – not to further any sort of coverage in their own publication.

And there is the greatest transgression. Yes, free speech is paramount, but that right to free speech carries with it an even greater responsibility to use it wisely. In this case, one could say it wasn’t done.

The decisions on what to publish and when is not always easy, and I can draw upon personal experience to relate to this issue. Many moons ago, when I was editor-in-chief of a daily student publication, I was faced with a similar response to a decision I made. And while I stand behind the principles of my decision today, I see that my zealousness for protection of freedom of speech was not tempered by my understanding of human nature – and the need to do right by the people I was mandated to serve.

At the time, we were blessed to have a talented daily cartoonist, who created a strip called Horowitz. In one panel, he created the image of the Christian god, watching Highway to Heaven, and on the phone with Allah. To paraphrase the text, the Christian god said, “Hey Allah, it’s God. Have you started your world yet? No, me neither.” And the caption read something like “despite what’s believed, God in fact slacked off for six days and crammed on the seventh.”

The initial publication of this cartoon drew mild controversy, of which I was aware when I chose to publish it again during my tenure at the helm of the paper. And that’s when all hell broke loose. Despite doing everything I could my year to be inclusionary to all groups, I was branded as anti-Arab through this one action.

My decision was prompted by two things: one, I thought the comic was damn funny. And, two: I wanted to assert the rights of the press over the tenets of a religious belief. While I still believe I was morally in the right to do so, looking back on it I can see how I neglected the needs of a significant sub-section of my readership.

The fact is that the paper I worked with had an obligation to represent all groups on campus, no matter what their race, religion, or creed. But, by the same token, I was not beholden to them to define my editorial stance by their beliefs.

It is unfair for any one religious group, be it Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or other, to expect a secular publication to obey the laws of its faith. Newspapers are secular in nature and must remain so to maintain their objectivity and credibility. That being said, while they must push the envelope and challenge their readership, they must understand the sensitivity of certain issues.

Certain religious groups forbid the spelling of the word god in print. Others demand the absence of all imagery because of the worship of falls idols. The fact of the matter is that the media must remain outside these rules – they are not above of below, but the media is separate and must remain so.

But in our increasingly diverse world, we must strive to be more respectful and more sensitive of other people’s beliefs. That doesn’t mean we must kowtow to their religious tenets, but we should make more of an effort to understand. And, on the other side, religious groups must realize that their laws do not necessarily apply to everyone on the planet, nor should they expect everyone to abide by their rules.

It’s a matter of respect – and both sides must respect the other if we’re to move forward as a global community. If we wish to continue to enjoy freedom of the press and freedom of religion, we must ensure that we use those freedoms wisely.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Business and Empathy Don’t Mix

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Well, today’s travesty about makes it certain that I’ll never buy a Ford again. Like the cars they build, the Fords run well, but have no heart.

The bloodletting has commenced and from the open wound, 25,000 to 30,000 jobs have spilled forth — all the cost of doing business and all part of a $1.6 billion US loss last year in North American operations.

I’m not naïve. I don’t see the world in rose-coloured glasses that doesn’t factor in the pressures of a market-driven economy. Nor am I so naïve to think that the unionized employees haven’t had some small impact on pricing themselves out of the market structure and making the company less competitive.

No, as painful as it is for these families who now have their lives wrenched asunder by an unyielding bottom line; this is all the cost of doing business. It’s a natural part of competition and business. And we could have accepted that. At least until Bill Ford opened his mouth. Because, as Bill Ford expressed to the media, we all have to make sacrifices here.

Where are those sacrifices for you, Bill? A hit on the stock market? A nominal drop in your net wealth? The accelerated impact that packaging and “inducements” as you so colloquially stated will have on your fiscal statements for the upcoming year?

Business is business. We get that. But don’t try to empathize, Bill. That suit doesn’t fit you nearly as well as the immaculately tailored one you wore to the press conference.

It is hard to believe that a multi-billionaire would have the audacity to envision a shared sense of loss in this situation. The sacrifices ol’ Bill makes, proportionately, are going to be far less than the devastation felt by those men and women whose sole source of income was their job at one of the 14 manufacturing plants now rendered superfluous to the company’s bottom line.

And these men and women don’t have the pleasure of diverting their attention from this tough time by tinkering with their personal NFL franchise – or a Super Bowl that will be held in a stadium that bears our name.

This is not to begrudge the rich. In fact, we as a society do far too much begrudging of the rich. Instead of feeling jealous for what they have, we should spend more time appreciating the talents that they leveraged to get to where they are in the social pecking order. We should strive to emulate their success in whatever aspect of life we choose to excel. To begrudge these people ignores the hard work they’ve put into to obtain – or maintain – their fortune.

But that doesn’t mean that we can’t abhor the total lack of empathy with the very people upon whose backs they’ve built their fortunes. These people, whose sacrifices Bill Ford feels he can share, spent their blood, sweat, and tears building the foundation for the mansions that the Ford family inhabits.

This is not a time for shared pain, Bill. He and other captains of industry need to understand that the public has little empathy for the multi-millionaire rearranging a portfolio or cutting losses to ensure a maximum return in the future. The public empathizes with the father supporting his family on one income – one income that’s now been taken away from him. The public empathizes with the single mother who works the line to put food on the table for her kids.

This is not a time to discuss the need for everyone to sacrifice. This is a time for the Ford family to apologize for the necessities of doing business. This is a time for the Ford family to get up and express an understanding of the human cost of turning a profit.

When we use words like resources, expenses, overhead, and operating capacity to describe a situation, we do so to dehumanize the principals involved. By treating the employees as commodities, it makes it easier to deal with the guilt that we should be feeling as humans when we tear another’s life asunder. So now Bill can go back to his home, absolved of the burden that this mass cutting temporarily placed on him. But what about those “resources?” Now that Bill’s sacrifices are complete, will he continue to share in the concern for those formerly under his employ?

That’s where this fake empathy causes the most consternation. By pretending to care about the very employees that you choose not even to refer to as people, it insults society’s intelligence. No matter how bitter the pill is, the public will swallow it because we’re not naïve. We know how money moves and we know the nature of the business world.

But, like a dying patient, we want the doctor to tell us the truth up front because sometimes that spoonful of sugar makes the medicine taste even more bitter.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved