What’s Wrong with Having Fun?

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Sure looks like the NFL is doing nothing to shake that No Fun League moniker, especially in light of the latest decision to restrict the scope of allowable celebrations in the end zone following a touch down. But what they’re forgetting is that what makes sports so appealing to us all is the fact that it’s a game – and we, as fans, love those who know how to play it.

In its typically convoluted way, the National Football League okayed celebrations as long as the participant remains on their feet, but doesn’t use anything as a prop. Spiking, spinning, and dunking the ball over the goal posts are still good. However, Cincinnati Bengals’ wide receiver Chad Johnson’s cheerleader proposal? Gone. Getting down on one knee and removing one’s helmet is now a no-no.

Call it the fallout from Sharpiegate. In recent years noted pigskin choreographers like Johnson and malcontent wideout Terrell Owens have made the end-zone their personal stage for animated celebrations of their scoring prowess.

Interestingly enough, part of the rationale behind restricting these demonstrative celebrations is the feeling that they focus on the player, not the team. San Diego head coach Marty Schottenheimer went so far as to say, “The game is about the team, not the player.”

Oh, how quickly we forget… Why, was it not just a couple of seasons ago that the Indianapolis Colts’ kickoff team were threatened with unsportsmanlike conduct penalties should they engage in their pre-kick sway. That was an example of a team coming together in a show of unity. The fact that it came from special teams – often the most underappreciated third of the game – made it even more special.

What’s forgotten by these leagues that want to legislate the fun out of sports is that most fans appreciate these gestures. Looking back historically, we remember those players who stood out for their celebrations. Whether it’s Tiger Williams riding the stick after scoring a goal, Barry Bonds admiring his own home runs before slowly trotting off, or Michael Jordan’s wayward tongue hanging out on his way to the rim, these images stick in our mind long after the memory of the game or the event has faded into the past.

Many reading this won’t remember the game, the score, or the event, but the image of Theoren Fleury bulging the twine and racing across the ice in a fit of youthful exhuberance, arms raised, before falling to the ice, spinning out and crashing into the far boards is indelibly etched in our minds.

Many more don’t give a wet slap about rugby. Yet how many of us are familiar with the New Zealand All-Blacks Maori-inspired Haka? Is there any harm in engaging in a pre-game ritual designed to pump up the team? No. These displays can even make an otherwise-to-be-forgotten player a lasting touchstone for a generation. Ickey Woods anyone?

Football’s got it backwards. The CFL frowns on obviously choreographed routines featuring more than one player, yet the fans love the image of six players falling in unison around a ball that’s symbolically transformed into a bomb.

Sports are supposed to be about fun. They’re also about diversity and personal expression. We admire these athletes because they can express their bodies and talents in ways that we can only dream. For every person who is offended by Steve Smith’s diaper-changing football routine, there’s another fan who was bored to tears by retired Detroit Lions’ running back Barry Sanders’ handing the ball back to the ref. In many cases, Sanders is deified for his display of class, while modern players are pilloried for their excesses.

The thing that people forget about sports is that the players themselves find a way to establish accepted limits. They don’t need outside help. If a football player is hamming it up too much, someone on the sidelines will make it abundantly clear that the behaviour shouldn’t happen. In hockey, an over-the-top celebration that has the effect of belittling an opponent will be dealt with in a future shirt – either with a stiff check or something more nefarious.

But is there anything wrong with having fun? Was not what made the 1985 Chicago Bears so appealing at least, in part, inspired by their Super Bowl Shuffle video? But as fast as Jim McMahon’s ego was inflated, was it not just as rapidly deflated by fan backlash? And that’s the great equalizer in sports – the fans will determine what they want to see and what they don’t. If Joe Horn jersey sales spiked after his cell-phone touchdown celebration, would that not indicate that fans enjoyed the spectacle. When fans tired of the Dennis Rodman sideshow, is it any wonder that he slipped into obscurity?

These games are played out in the field – not the boardroom. If the fans wanted to watch stuffed suits, they would. In the meantime, let the players play. After all, it’s only a game, so what’s wrong with having fun?

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Activists Obscure Truth in Seal Hunt, Natural Order

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

I admire the tenacity of those PETA people, I truly do. But there comes a time and place where we need to learn to pick our battles. Nature’s a cruel mistress, and no amount of cajoling or grandstanding is going to make her change her mind – but in this new world, the key to survival isn’t related to brain-power, but how cute you look.

So Brigitte Bardot can grace us with her presence, she can stand before the horrifying image of a human baby lying dead on the ice, with a seal poised to deliver yet another blow with a club. Unfortunately, Bardot, Paul McCartney and a significant number of these well-meaning (I hope) animal-rights activist are being deliberately misleading in their commentary. And isn’t it interesting that a former bombshell and the one known as “the cute Beatle” are the ones lending their image to this fight.

In today’s world we’ve usurped natural Darwinism and replaced it with a more cosmetic version. And the images just obscure the issues.

Do a quick search on-line for anything relating to Canada’s annual seal hunt and you’ll be peppered with sites showing images of dewy-eyed baby seal pups, looking forlornly at the camera, with the implicit knowledge that some big, bad hunter is just waiting in the wings with a club ready to crush its little brains in.

Sorry, that’s just not the case. In fact, it’s illegal to hunt any seal that has yet to shed its newborn pelt. So that fluffy little cute seal we see is just fine.

Now, how about those ugly looking tuna? Nobody’s rushing to their rescue. We’ve accepted the fact that humans need to eat – although this logic doesn’t seem to matter to those opposing native seal-hunting rights, but I digress – and because tuna are big and ugly, we rarely see aging Brit-Poppers hanging out at the Star-Kist plant posing next to an image of an oppressed Charlie the Tuna.

But the dolphins that get caught in those nets that’s another story. We can’t kill the cute little dolphins – why, you may get Flipper! Yet, where’s the outrage over the loss of coral or pikas, both of which are on the World Wildlife Funds’ endangered species list? They don’t make for quite as appealing ad copy as baby snow leopards or orphaned pandas. Cows, pigs, and chickens are staples of our diet – but why do their lives deserve any less consideration than seals? Who is the final arbiter as to which animal gets to live and which is classified as livestock?

I really don’t know enough about seal hunting to know whether or not it’s something that should be supported. As someone who loves to tuck into a good steak, eats a heck of a lot of chicken, and enjoys the bounty of pork products that exist, I don’t feel I have the right to stand on a pulpit and pick and choose which animals are above becoming a meal or a jacket.

And, when statistics say that the seal population, despite the annual hunt, is flourishing, it’s hard for me to say that this practice is having a negative impact on the ecosystem. After all, it’s not like seals are in the predicament of African elephants, being killed simply for their tusks. These are animals that are, in many cases, being used as a significant source of the local economy and diet. This isn’t pleasure killing, this is nature at its base essence.

But the problem with this type of emotional advertising and grandstanding from activists like McCartney, Bardot – heck, even Pamela Anderson, is that the issue gets obscured by the image. While it’s effective in swaying those who only look at the surface of the issue, where is the open discussion for those willing to look at both sides of the story? Where are the facts, not just the emotions?

Baby seals photograph better than hunters (most of whom use guns, not clubs – but clubs make for more savage imagery), but where are the images of the native hunter bringing home food for the family. Or where’s the picture of the outpost fishing village whose very livelihood rests upon the continuance of the seal hunt?

The world has always been about predators and prey. Not to go all Lion King here, but there is a circle of life at play, wherein animals and nature work symbiotically to maintain a balance. Just as deforestation, global warming, and hunting for profit can irreparably damage nature’s precarious order, could not overprotecting animals have the same sort of effect?

For the average person who just wants to do right by the world, the answers aren’t evident. And, unfortunately for us, the greatest thing that’s being obscured by this drama, hyperbole, imagery, and emotion, is the truth.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Tecumseh’s Trees Obscuring Educational Forest

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

In a true case of not being able to see the forest for the trees, the battle over a small public school in South London has become the focal point of the debate regarding the Thames Valley District School Board’s future – and it’s preventing us from taking a good hard look at the education system as a whole.

As a former student at South Secondary School – the big, bad entity that’s going to swallow up Tecumseh Public School – I found myself thinking that what was being obscured was the loss of what potentially is one of the most unique learning environments in the city – good ol’ SCI. Would annexing the neighbouring facility not precede an increase of student enrollment? Would that educational Mecca be trampled underfoot of a stampeding horde of additional students?

But my memories betray the reality of the situation. I remember a school where 700 kids grew together, learned together, and enjoyed a community environment that didn’t exist in other schools where enrollment was larger. We pretty much knew – or knew of – everyone else in the school and there was a comfort level attached to it. My worry, upon following this story, was that this small-school benefit would be lost.

Lo and behold, maybe it already has. And maybe we’re arguing for a past that no longer exists. In speaking with South’s current principal Barb Sonier, and Chris Dennett, the manager of public affairs and community relations for the TVDSB, today’s situation differs greatly from my almost 15 years’ past reality.

South is bursting at the seams. With nine portables and over 1,000 students, there’s no elbow room. The student body can’t fit into the auditorium at the same time. How can minds expand when there’s no room to breathe? So, with declining elementary enrollment and need for space, the annexation of Tecumseh’s facilities by South just makes sense, right? Maybe. But perhaps there are other answers.

And by focusing on these little brush fires, we’re missing out on actions that we can take to put out the raging inferno that’s building. We can’t continue to apply band-aid solutions to our education system. We can’t continue to play feast or famine with various schools, depending on demographic or residential swings. The time to take broad, decisive actions is now.

We have to stop thinking regionally. We should be thinking of the betterment of all students. It’s hard to argue that the kids in Old South shouldn’t be able to go to their school. It’s hard to look at their cherubic little faces in the paper, or see the heart-felt appeals they make to save their school, and say that it’s not possible. But it’s equally hard to say that other students – maybe older, maybe from a different area – don’t have the right to a maximized education as well.

How do we decide? Case by case won’t work. And pie-in-the-sky calls for more funding will continue to go unheeded. It’s time to work towards a cure of our education system, not just treating the symptoms when they flare up, with the tools at our disposal – today.

And first and foremost, we have to look at where education should be going. Our system has been in place for years, but the world is changing at an increasingly rapid pace. Are our schools meeting the needs? Not all that long ago, you could argue that having a separate school board for Catholic students and a quote-unquote public system (which, not too long ago was often referred to as Protestant…) made sense. In today’s multi-cultural and multi-religious society, one would be hard pressed to find an argument in favour of the duplication of effort, the waste of resources, and the imbalance in facilities.

Patching the holes won’t work any more. We need to tear down and rebuild the system. We need to find one that works for all students. Obviously money is at a premium, so why not do our best to maximize the allocation of these precious resources? Instead of two separate school boards, roll them together and focus on the creation of programs that embrace our society’s multi-denominational status, so that we can learn to love, respect, and understand one another.

And the short-fall in the elementary system won’t be restricted to there. In time, those diminished numbers will filter up to the high school system. Do we wait for a crisis at that time, or do we take the steps necessary to ensure our system, as a whole, is ready for the challenges that are before us?

Tradition has a role to play in our society and we should embrace it, but not at the expense of any child’s education. Although the decisions may be tough, we have to ensure that the already stretched dollars and overtaxed teaching resources aren’t strained until the point where they snap. It’s time for someone to take a carte blanche approach to the education system and create a best-practices scenario for today’s demographics.

We can’t just hold onto the past. The tighter we squeeze, the faster it slips through our fingers. The South of my memories is gone – but the commitment to excellence in education remains. Let’s just make sure that today’s students have the same opportunity to succeed that I did. And that comes with defining a plan, using resources wisely, and dealing with today’s realities – not yesterday’s memories.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Find Your Voice and Speak

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Who is more deserving? When it’s a matter of life and death, how do we choose whose life and death matters more?

There are only so many charities and so few dollars to go around. While I know I should be thankful for the situation I’m in, the fact of the matter is we all struggle to make ends meet. We can’t give as much as we like to everyone, so how do we choose?

The question comes up due to my recent purchase of Aldo’s Empowerment tags in support of YouthAIDS program. But why did I choose to spend my money there, as opposed to other no-less worthy causes? There’s no good answer, other than I felt it was right.

Immediately, when we donate to any cause, we feel the need to justify our decision. As if our own personal preferences weren’t enough, we feel pressure to make sure our choice stands up to external scrutiny. Why AIDS over cancer? How about heart disease, diabetes, or the Special Olympics? Why one over the other?

And the simple answer is that we have to do something. Otherwise, we run the risk of suffering paralysis by analysis. There are four causes that my family supports as much as possible: AIDS, heart research, cancer, and world/child poverty. But why are my visible signs of support limited to the white band around my wrist and a necklace around my neck?

I’ve got no good answer. At least nothing more than it feels right.

When it comes to my wife and I, our family has been touched by a number of issues, which have shaped our charitable intentions: we’ve had family members suffer from and even die of heart conditions; we’ve lost family members to cancer; we currently have a friend who is slowly losing the battle against AIDS; and we are strong supporters of debt forgiveness and sustainable growth in developing nations.

However, we’ve also been touched by other diseases. From friends with Multiple Sclerosis to family members suffering from paralysis and even personal experiences with nerve damage, asthma, ADD, and pulmo-resperatory issues, we’ve got ample targets to which our support can be directed. But somehow, somewhere, you have to make a choice. For better or for worse, there’s only so much we can do. Yet, if we become paralyzed with the inability to justify our decisions, then we run the risk of doing even more damage by doing nothing at all.

As 30-something youth, AIDS is rightfully our generation’s disease and, as such, we have an obligation to fight the battle. It’s emergence in the 1980s coincided with our growth into social consciousness. Our circle of friends includes many in the gay community who have felt the destructive power of the disease first-hand. Add to that the devastation this disease is wreaking over Africa, when so much can be done to help prevent it.

And maybe we support anti-poverty efforts because there’s a clear solution to the problem. This is a situation that can be resolved in the not-so-distant future as long as we have the social and political will behind us to make the right decisions. Perhaps the idea of supporting a cause that can be cured is more appealing than continuing to throw money at telethons for diseases where we’re only being fed hope, not solutions. Is that right? No. Is that realistic? Maybe.

Maybe we’re selfish with our choices? The facts that my father had a quadruple-bypass and my grandfather passed from a heart attack are significant components of my support for that cause. As well, with grandparents and friends being both victims and survivors of cancer, we feel more of an affinity for those charities? Are they any more valuable than the others? Probably not – but, again, we had to make a choice.

The reality is, for every 10 reasons I can support one cause, there is a corresponding number of equally valid reasons to support another. We can’t justify our choice, but nor should we feel guilty – at least not as long as we make a choice and do something. There is so much for us to give – not only of money, but of time and support – that there’s no excuse for us not to participate in solving the world’s problems, one step at a time. There is no magic bullet, there will be no quick fix for anything, but through our mutual efforts we can affect change.

They may seem like small steps, it may seem like an insignificant number, but making a small difference is far better than making no difference at all. My Empowerment tag reads “Speak” and now I have spoken. For better or for worse, I’ve made a choice. It’s one small step, but at least it’s a step forward.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

An Unqualified Masters in Bracketology

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

It’s March Madness again and, like many of you, I’ve filled out my brackets and eagerly check on the scores to see how my picks are faring.

Also, like many of you, I have no idea what I’m doing.

There are 64 teams in the NCAA tournament and I’m hard-pressed to name any of the players. Not one. In fact, I can only name a handful of coaches. Yet, I sat down and actually thought about my picks, justifying them in my mind, before committing them to paper. I am in three – count ‘em – three on-line pools! But, to be fair, all of them are free.

I may be delusional, but I’m not crazy.

It’s all just a crapshoot. For the most part, the big favourites end up winning, the Final Four is comprised of at least a couple of number-one seeds, and the world keeps spinning on its axis. And, you know what, I’ll probably do fairly well with my picks.

On the other hand, when it comes to picking sports that I do know, I’m abysmal. I’ve tried ProLine-ing hockey and all I end up doing is making a donation to the lottery fund. I consider myself well-versed in the Canadian Football League, but my annual foray into a prediction pool ends up finding me drowning half-way through.

NHL playoff pools? Football fantasy? Basketball rotisserie? All met with varying degrees of success. But NCAA? I’m in it to win it each year.

NCAA Pools pop up everywhere both in offices and on-line. The Final Four tournament is one of those events that even non-sports fans can appreciate. Like the Super Bowl and the Olympics, these are bandwagon events that have enough room for everyone to jump on. And because there’s a structure to the event people can easily get involved in the game.

And get in the game we do. The best part about participating in these pools is when you watch those self-important few, who can name the starting five of all the NIT-level schools blow a gasket over the guy who lets his three-year-old pick the results ending up winning the pool. The beauty of the NCAA tournament is that anyone can win it and there’s just no rhyme or reason most of the time.

One serendipitous game. That’s all it takes for a one-seed to fall by the wayside in the first weekend. A couple of unlucky bounces one way and a hot hand going the other and the favourite is watching along with the rest of us. It’s that one-and-out finality that draws us to the games. This isn’t a long, slow build-up, like most fantasy pools – this is instant gratification at its finest.

What’s great is the liberating feeling that one has picking these brackets. I know about as much about the Final Four as I do about the Bolivian election. The only difference is that I have an opinion on the NCAA tournament – and it matters just as much as the guy whose life is dedicated to catching college hoops on the tube.

Overall, it’s shocking how much most of us who fill out these brackets don’t know about college hoops. Not that I’m advocating ignorance, but I’m just as happy not knowing. I have my sports of interest and college basketball isn’t one of them. However, when it comes to events of interest, the Final Four is right up there.

In truth, what I know about college hoops is pretty much restricted to the things I hate about it: Duke (although I really don’t know why I hate them, they just seem to elicit this feeling) and Dick Vitale (and I do know why I hate them.) That’s about it. I read a great biography of Michigan’s Fab Five once – does that count?

I enjoy basketball at its highest level – the NBA. And, while I appreciate the dedication and talent of these *cough* student *cough* athletes, for the most part I’m not invested in their fortunes. I can’t tell my Iona from my Gonzaga, but I’ve picked one of them to make it to the Final Four!

So, when the end of the tournament finally comes, I’ll be checking with interest to see who cuts down the nets. And, although I may not recognize the player, I’ll sure be smiling if the team is in my bracket.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved