Oh the Humanity!

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Three hours – 40 e-mails. And that’s a quiet day. Anyone else think that’s excessive? Anyone else feel that cubicle-dwellers are just putting up more walls around themselves by trading expediency for human contact?

It’s not a new concept, it’s not a new idea, but our compartmentalized lives are negating the delicate art of human interaction. In fact, in the office environment I work, I can go days without knowing whether or not co-workers that share the same immediate office space as I are even here!

But whose fault is that? Is it a product of some faceless, omnipotent bureaucratic force – or is it the fact that I get so self-absorbed in myself and my work that I don’t make an effort to walk the 20 feet to see who’s there?

We’re only human, so it’s normal that we look to blame someone, or something, else for our trials and tribulations. However, this loss of human contact can’t be blamed on e-mails, Instant Messaging, or the telephone – the blame lies squarely at our own two feet. And it’s time for us to deal with it.

E-mail conversations are increasingly replacing simple chats as the preferred method of doing business. As opposed to actually GOING to someone’s desk and addressing an issue face to face, we e-mail a conversation. But, like long-distance chess, the end result may be the same, but the time between commencement and conclusion can be interminable.

I’ve had e-mail discussions that have lasted all day, when in reality the simple act of picking up the phone and calling someone – or, perish the thought, actually getting up and talking to them face-to-face – would have rendered the entire discussion complete within a couple of minutes.

But today’s employee measures efficiency not in the time it takes to complete a task, but in the number of tasks that they’re able to juggle at any one time. Multi-tasking is simply a fact of life in today’s hectic business environment, so the idea of dedicating a block of time to one topic – and only one! – is anathema to many people. By keeping their butts firmly ensconced in their chair, they’re able to have access to a wide range of activities. However, by walking away from the desk – cutting the electronic umbilical cord, if you will – we find ourselves lost and alone, disconnected from the so-called lifelines that have become so much a part of us.

Remaining sedentary, in the business world, can often be perceived as being productive. And getting up, walking around, and talking face-to-face with people can be perceived by others as a lack of commitment, wasting time, or – to put it bluntly in biz-speak – having too-familiar relations with a member of the canis familiaris species.

Let’s not vilify e-mail completely. Let’s acknowledge that e-mail has the power to bring people closer together and has completely revitalized the lost art of letter-writing (however, it appears to have not brought back a commensurate resurrection of grammar and spelling proficiency). I keep in touch with friends and family living in far-off places much easier than before the advent of electronic communications. Firing off an e-mail, and even attaching a few pictures, is a cheap, easy, and almost-immediate way for people to keep in touch.

But in the business world we have to prioritize networking, communications, and social interaction. Getting up to talk about an issue with a co-worker isn’t just socially rewarding – it’s expedient, productive, and effective. Importantly, it positively impacts the bottom line.

Tone, subtlety, sarcasm, humour, innuendo – all can get lost in the process of e-mailing someone. Real feelings can be hurt by virtual world, and often these are caused by a misrepresentation of the written word reflecting off a cold, emotionless screen. You don’t get that ambiguity to the same extent in face-to-face communications.

In the end, no matter what business you’re in, your end product’s target is human. So why don’t we involve more humanity in the process? E-mail is a tool, that’s it – it shouldn’t be the whole tool box. And I’d rather have a face-to-face with a repairman than a hammer any day – it’s a whole lot less painful.

The next time you go to send an e-mail, consider whether a more personal approach may serve you better. After all, we’re only human, right?

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Looking for Skeletons in Harper’s Closet

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Could this be it? Could this be the moment we’ve all been waiting for? Prime Minister Stephen Harper has announced that a free vote on same-sex unions will be held in the fall. But by opening that particular closet, will this be the time that a few right-wing skeletons come tumbling out?

Remember, this ain’t your father’s Conservative Party. The Conservative Party of Canada, as helmed by Mr. Harper, is the (some would say unholy) union of the Progressive Conservative and Alliance Party – the old Reform. And let’s just say the past has been peppered with some interesting comments.

For example:

  • Garry Breitkreutz, MP for Yorkton-Melville was quoted in a press release saying, “ In the 1950s, buggery was a criminal offence, now it’s a requirement to receive benefits from the federal government.”
  • Art Hanger, MP for Calgary Northeast uttered these bon mots, “Homosexuality, to anyone who has not been brainwashed by the last decade of effective propaganda by the gay lobby, is unnatural. It is a repudiation of nature. … Homosexuality is nihilistic. It protects nothing, it defends nothing, it continues nothing, and it sustains nothing.” Now, admittedly, that was back in 1995 – so maybe a decade has tempered his views. You think?
  • And how about Mr. Stockwell Day, who followed the natural train of thought when discussing why the protection from discrimination from religion, ethnic origin, and gender should not extend to same-sex couples… “What about the next step? Those who lobby for sex with children?”

Yes, is there any wonder why Mr. Harper’s running the government like an Orwellian Ministry of Truth? Now, to be fair, these quotes – and others like them – are compiled on the official Web site of Egale, a national organization which aims to advance equality and justice for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans-identified people and their families across Canada. But we these quotes out there, Harper, when considering his own political future, must be thinking, ‘With friends like these who need enemies?’

And that’s the problem with this debate. The Conservatives know it too, which is why some members of Harper’s own party have come out recently with concerns about not letting sleeping dogs lie – even if they choose to lie together despite having the same genitalia.

You’ve got to have the feeling that the more right-wing members of Harper’s Caucus (is that too homoerotic for them?) have been patiently sitting on their hands, allowing the Prime Minister to go his way knowing that their position as a minority government is precarious at best. But will the bait be too tempting for them not to slip up? Harper, like a frantic plate spinner, has been taking on all the responsibilities himself to ensure that nothing leaks from the back benches. He’s running ragged, desperately trying to ensure that not one plate falls, shattering the silence, by assuming the brunt of the public responsibility himself.

This will be the test. There are many out in Canada believing that old habits truly do die hard. And they’ve been waiting for any sign of the sheep’s clothing to slide off these presumed wolves. The gay marriage debate may just be the issue that does it.

One has to wonder if Harper even has an interest in fighting this battle, knowing that he’s probably going to lose. The NDP and Bloc are certain to vote against rescinding the existing legislation that permits same-sex marriage. And the majority of Liberals will probably do the same. But in an attempt to showcase his good points – the willingness to live up to his promises, he’s running the risk of showering his party with negativity.

In provinces such as Ontario and Quebec, where the Conservatives are desperately trying to show their compassionate Conservatism can mesh with the left-leaning tendencies of these provinces and their major, vote-rich, urban areas, Harper can’t come across as a discriminatory Redneck.

In the end, even if he loses, he can come out better than when he went in. If Harper’s willing to engage in a respectful debate, avoid name calling or downright offensive behaviour, and keep the chatter from the back benches to a dull whisper, he can come out of this debate as a better facilitator. Harper can stand up and say that he’s a willing representative of the will of the people, and that he was able to keep his promises.

But that’s only if those skeletons stay in the closet. And right now, the door’s wide open.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Idea for Perfume Ban Stinks

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Does the nose know best? Or have we lost all sense when it comes to scents. The proposal by a citizen’s group in our nation’s capital just shows that common sense is just not all that common anymore.

Ottawa city councilors will be debating the merits of a proposed action designed to minimize the use of perfumes and other scents in public places. This action is well-intentioned as it’s an attempt to diminish the discomfort for those with breathing challenges and allergies.

But you know what they say about how the road to hell is paved… Although at least Ottawa’s off-ramp will be sweet smelling.

Odiferous or odious? Well, that’s really a matter of personal choice now, isn’t it? And can you truly legislate against personal preferences? Is that a road that we really want to go down? Already certain businesses and health care institutions have implemented low-odour or no-odour policies due to health concerns, but should this really be in writing, punishable by a fine? Will people be sent to jail for fragrances?

Will we come to the day in Canada when Passion, Contradiction, Escape, and Truth will be crimes? The Calvin Klein versions, of course.

Personally, the idea of any government body spending more than a nanosecond debating this is frightening as it means we’re almost at the point where we’ve totally relinquished control over our own actions. We’re on the verge of abdicating the right to think for ourselves in an attempt to ensure that no one’s rights are trampled upon.

Like a number of you, I’m not a fan of that wall of scent that greets you as you walk into certain department stores. You hold your breath as you rush through the flowery – yet still fetid – air, eyes watering at the intrusion of the aromatic waves. In this case, these floral notes are all wrong – yet I’ve made a choice to enter that store, knowing full well what I’m going to be walking into. But if we’re willing to get tough on the purchasers, should not the vendors be subject to the same scrutiny?

And what about other issues? What about offensive body odour? If we’re willing to investigate legislation regarding sweet-smelling perfume, should we not also look into what can be done about people with personal hygiene issues?

Just as noxious as the over-sprayed is the under-washed. How many times have you been in a grocery or department store, minding your own business, when – as Vincent Price so eloquently put — the funk of 40,000 years wallops you in the face and sends you reeling? Male or female, fetid body odour knows no bounds. Yet where is the proposed legislation over that? Are allergies any more important than retching?

Maybe instead of spending time and money on potential legislation and/or information campaigns, we should be hoping that common sense and common courtesy will prevails.

If you work in an environment where someone has taken liberties with the spritzer, then you have the right to request a toning down of the scent. Similarly, if you work with other people – especially those with compromised respiratory issues, asthma, or allergies – then you have an obligation, as a human, to not be offensive.

That’s it, that’s all. Simple as that. No need to enact new laws, no need to criminalize people for wanting to smell better. All it takes is a little common courtesy and willingness to work in a group dynamic. Yet we seem to be incapable of taking this simple action. We’re so focused on ourselves that we refuse – or are unwilling – to take others’ needs into consideration.

The fact that this situation is being discussed in Ottawa isn’t the problem. The real joke is that it needs to be discussed at all. People say you can’t legislate common sense, but what does it say about us when our governments at least have to try.

Despite all the perfume in the air, something still smells foul – perhaps its our lack of respect for each other.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Fishing for the Force of Celebrity

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

We question why a fish, once he’s escaped certain death at the end of a hook, would so readily lust after that oddly hanging, totally-out-of-its-element, worm the next time it cross its path. But it does, just as we do whenever Madonna goes out on tour.

They say fish have painfully short memories, but what’s our excuse for biting down again on the same old tired bait.

Newspapers, television shows, and the Internet are rife with images of the largely Immaterial Girl symbolically crucifying herself on a mirrored cross. And, instead of ignoring the bait, the Catholic League just couldn’t resist and now finds itself dancing on the line that is Madonna’s publicity machine.

Really, do we care what Madonna does? Are we at all surprised with what she does on stage? Should we be? Honestly, it’s not as if this is Barry Manilow we’re talking about here. It’s not like Madonna doesn’t have a history of turning taboos into television time. Yet, like the spoiled child who gets attention by throwing a temper tantrum, Madonna is able to use outrageous behaviour to gain her attention when, perhaps, her music no longer warrants it.

Cone bras, bisexualism, dancing as a peep show stripper with an underage child, alleged carnal explorations of Dennis Rodman and Vanilla Ice, burning crosses in Pepsi ads, simulated masturbation on stage – really, did nobody see the precedent here? Are we really supposed to be shocked?

If she managed to come out with a movie that didn’t suck – then, that would warrant attention. But no, we’re hooked like fish on a two-pronged rod – one reeling us in, the other one hooked into our wallets – and Madonna manages to leverage her lifetime membership in the Cult of Celebrity.

What is it about us that values style over substance? Madonna’s imagery was always an interesting side project to the fact that her music was, in large part, entertaining and danceable. Before she was a trend-setter, now she jumps from trend to trend, canoodling with today’s starlets (hello Ms. Spears) in an attempt to have their star power rub off on her. She, like so many other entertainers before her, is living off her legacy and has long moved past the stage of titillating into the realm of creepy, reserving space on the discount rack next to Sharon Stone’s Basic Instinct sequel.

It seems when superstars reach a certain status, their need to actually put out quality work lessens – for a time. While U2 is back on top of their game, there were quite a few albums there where it appeared they were just going through the motions. Yet fans would still try to justify the work, analyze their new directions, and come up with plausible explanations for why the new stuff sucked.

Here’s a news flash. Musicians can suck. Actors can plateau. Life moves on. Talent isn’t absolute. Keanu Reeves: good in Bill & Ted’s, bad in everything else. Yet, somehow he continues to get roles – including a new film with the similarly inexplicable Sandra Bullock — despite showing the acting range of the average piece of theatre popcorn. Al Pacino, once a celluloid force is now just cashing checks and shouting his way through scenes where he once gave consideration to acting. And what deal with the devil has kept Bon Jovi recording albums while similarly (un)talented acts like Helix and Nelson are pushing brooms in the local mini-mart?

Celebrity is an odd force. It’s inexplicable and defies talent. The magazine racks are filled with images of starlet racks. Their talent is secondary to their “talents.” Going by the gossip mags, our Hollywood celebrities spend most of their time in bikinis. But sex sells — which may explain Paris Hilton. Our modern-day Zsa Zsa Gabor, famous for being famous, Hilton represents everything that’s both wrong and right about fame.

It’s mercurial, it’s fortuitous, and it’s inexplicable. It can prop up the talentless, while crushing the dreams of those with real acting or singing chops. It’s a force of nature that we’re all moved by but have no control over. And it makes us suspend our otherwise common sensibilities and blinds us to reality.

So the next time Madonna does something predictably outrageous, feel free to be offended. After all, it’s just the force of celebrity moving you to take the bait, yet again.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

CFL Cheapens Its Image with NFL Outcasts

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

It’s ironic that during this time when the Canadian dollar is so strongly valued against its American counterpart, our football league has never appeared cheaper than it does today.

The Canadian Football League, thanks to just two players who have yet to play a snap in the three-down game, have gone from being a viable league unto its own to becoming the laughing stock of the pigskin world – a last bastion for the National Football League’s castoffs.

South of the border, Lady Liberty proclaims “give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breath free. The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.” But perhaps the misguided few in the CFL should paraphrase that slogan into a new advertising campaign.

Think of it, the Radically Canadian promotion is close to running its course, so why not try, “Give us your suspended, your exiled, your cheaters yearning to prove they’re above the law. The wretched refuse of your roster – as long as they have some marketability left.”

With the Whizzinator himself, Onterrio Smith, suiting up – or, at least, riding the pines nursing an injury – in Winnipeg, and Ricky Williams looking to join the Argonauts despite a penchant for puffing and passing polluted pee, the CFL has been downgraded to nothing more than a novelty act. And that’s a shame for the hundreds of hard-working, dedicated athletes who have represented themselves appropriately and integrated themselves into our communities.

For the next year, at least, the CFL will only be referenced south of the border in highlights featuring these two drug cheats. Their time in purgatory will become fodder for the talking heads on the nightly sportscasts. The toil of their teammates will be little more than ambient noise from which these miscreants exploits can jump out! Of course, at least the league will be mentioned south of the border more than once a year as a throwaway item during the Grey Cup.

But is any publicity really good publicity? Will the presence of these two running backs truly bring needed attention to the league? Or will it just be another way for these two players to earn even more attention in the national spotlight while their teams toil in anonymity. Does anyone really believe that people are going to look at the Blue Bombers or Argonauts as anything more than opportunistic jokes?

And that’s not all. The Montreal Alouettes have their own history of hiring thugs. Quarterback Quincy Carter is out of the NFL, allegedly due to concerns about potential drug-related suspensions. And this is also the team that gave upstanding citizen Lawrence Phillips another chance to rehabilitate his career. Of course, this is the same guy who helped his girlfriend down the stairs by dragging her down them by her hair, but that’s OK for the CFL.

Really, aren’t we better than this? Is the lure of potential so great that winning supersedes character? Of course, we know it does in the realm of professional sports. But while a league like the NFL, NBA, or even the NHL can afford to give thugs a second chance, a league like the CFL – desperately searching for an identity and credibility – can’t afford to be linked with these miscreants.

The biggest problem is that these are high-profile players, not simply special-teamers who can be buried on the roster. Smith, Williams, Carter, and even Phillips were marquee talents at one time who were brought in to dominate, not just contribute. In the minds of the league’s owners and general managers these players’ perceived value on the gridiron exceeds the cost to their reputation.

But what happens next year? If Smith and Williams are reinstated, what legacy do they leave behind in Canada? Will it be the rich football traditions present in Winnipeg and Toronto that Americans think about the next time they cast their minds to our league? Or will their names only illicit chuckles as the bush-league suckers who grabbed any attention they could, regardless of the cost?

The CFL obviously desperately craves acceptance as a big league of its own. The problem is that you’re tainted by the company you keep. And when high-profile players with questionable pasts become the face of your league, don’t be surprised when you’re not only looked upon as a joke, but some of those long-time supporters walk away because the league they love is no longer.

Is that really a cost the CFL is willing to pay?

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved