Commonwealth Games Too Common

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

You may not have thought it was possible, but there is – in fact – something less relevant to our lives than the Olympics. Perhaps you may have missed it but Melbourne, Australia is proudly hosting the 18 th Commonwealth Games.

Or, as I like to refer to them, the Notably Absent of Well-Funded, Talented Athletes Where We Can Actually Dominate and Feel Good About Ourselves Games.

Much like the schoolyard kid who is too weak to compete with children his own age, yet revels in dominating the kindergarten kids on the basketball court, the Commonwealth Games lets us watch as we rack up medals against such luminous competition as Belize, the Falkland Islands, and the powerhouse Papua New Guinea club.

Forgive me if I don’t rush to set my PVR so as not to miss a second of this riveting action.

All it takes to compete is to come from a country that was once a colony of Britain. That’s it. And, thanks to a quirk in geography, we Canadians step up to the games as one of the bigger fish in this artificially smaller sea. Along with England and the host country Australia, we get the pleasure of sending our athletes to kick a little Melbourne sand into the faces of our geographically weaker Commonwealth buddies.

Because of this, the Olympics run rings – pun fully intended – around the Commonwealth Games in terms of the level of competition in the events. The only thing these events enable us to do is gauge how our future Summer Olympians are faring against lesser competition. I suppose if we’re losing to Cyprus and Tongo, it’s time to revisit our funding and coaching.

The proof of the Commonwealth Games’ lack of relevance is evidenced simply by the fact that few of us can remember any of the past champions – not to mention any breathtaking moments. These games come and go, with barely a blip on the athletic radar. At least the Olympics, as hypocritical as people are in watching and supporting them, are spectacle enough to receive – if not warrant – mass media coverage.

The Olympics are the big show. The Commonwealth Games are on the level of the Pan-Am Games as events that you can safely miss without a tinge of regret.

Now, let me state that I don’t want to denigrate the effort and dedication that the athletes that compete in these games have shown. In fact, they’re to be admired for attempting to compete at the highest level possible, in spite of a notable lack of interest from their home countries.

But where are the Petro-Canada tie-ins for our Commonwealth athletes? Where are the endless loop of commercials dominating our television screens drumming up support for our proud Canadians competing under our flag for our honour? Where is the water-cooler talk in the office about how many golds we’ll win?

It’s not there. Because, in general, we don’t really care about our athletes – at least not for three years and 50 weeks. Many of us become armchair experts during the two-week Olympic period and live and die with the fates of our Canadian athletes. Yet it’s a hypocritical, vicarious pleasure that we allow ourselves to enjoy because we haven’t earned it. We don’t support these athletes at any other time of their training.

And these athletes, so anonymous in their toil at the Commonwealth Games, will be front-page news and first-and-foremost in the minds of the average Canadian in two years when the Summer Olympics roll around. But where is our support for them now, before the bright lights cast off by the Olympic flame illuminate their faces?

A search on the official games’ Web site indicates that we’ve sent a total of 144 athletes to the event, with the most notable name being young diving star Alexandre Despatie. But I’d say its safe to say that few Canadians will remember these athletes’ exploits over the next few days in Melbourne the moment the games over.

Heck, most of us won’t remember them by the time we wake up.

The Games’ official mascot is Karak, a South-Eastern Red-Tailed Black Cockatoo. With only 1,000 of these birds remaining they’re on the precipice of extinction. This is all somewhat appropriate considering that’s this is where the Commonwealth Games should be – extinct.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

New Measure of Manhood

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Just one word is all it took to remove any of the last vestiges of any sense of cool masculinity to which I was still clinging. Of my own volition, I uttered the word “tummy,” and completed my decent into the land of doing fatherhood.

And you know what? I’m a better man for it.

There were no excuses for my actions. I awoke at night, feeling slightly nauseous, and when my wife turned to ask what was wrong I replied, “My tummy hurts.” And, at that point, it felt even worse as my concept of masculinity plummeted into my gut. Sure, I was tired, but there were no kids around. Just me and my vocabulary diluted to the point where “tummy” was my first reference.

The overall decent has been slow and gradual, like a glacier eroding away the rugged edges of a coast, my carefully crafted, grizzled exterior has been systematically smoothed away by an unyielding force of nature – children.

It’s an interesting parallel watching my son enter that delicate pre-teen age bracket. At 11 years old, his life is all about proving himself in front of his friends. Like all of us at the time, he has a foggy idea of what it means to be a man, but is unable to comprehend what manhood is truly about.

That lesson is one we don’t truly learn until later in life. Even as we progress into our teenage years and our young adulthood, our growth is all about defining ourselves as individuals, showing ourselves to be rugged men capable of standing up against the ravages that the world throws on us. We engage in social rituals and sporting events, which at their very root, are designed to establish a masculinity hierarchy. It’s just nature over nurture and there’s nothing we can do about it.

Yet, for all the chest-thumping, testosterone-fuelled bellowing we do in our youth, the irony is that the true indication of when we become a man is announced not with a roar, but with the dulcet tones we use with our children.

We spend our lives searching for ways to show our dominance. Whether it’s through drinking contests, games of one-on-one, or comparing financial statements, we spend our youth looking for external validation of our manhood. And when we do find it, it’s not through our friends or co-workers, but in the outstretched arms, unconditional love, and unyielding trust of our children.

It is at that moment, when we look into our children’s eyes that we see, reflected back to us, all we need to know in life. It is at that moment when nothing else matters in this world. We stop caring what anybody else thinks, because all that matters is that we do right by our children.

It is at that moment too when we can drop all the pretences and tear down the artificial walls with which we have surrounded ourselves. We can lie down on the floor and just be ourselves with our family. It is in that time when everything finally seems to make sense.

Yet still there are stereotypes that persist. As a parent with two children, one boy and one girl, I can attest that there are differences in the way we experience things. For my initial interaction with my son, the need to remove those traits of masculinity was lessened. He was and is going through the same things that I was and I can understand where he is in life. I can tell him what it truly means to be a man, but it’s a journey that he’ll have to take for himself, so that he can appreciate it more. But, as such, we can fall into the same trap of reliving a juvenile form of masculinity.

In a father-son relationship, we often look to help our children be what we determine a man should be: strong, yet caring; respectful, yet willing to stand up for your beliefs; tough, yet compassionate. Yet those are the same ideals that I strive to impart to my daughter. In the end, gender is a generality, and it’s the individual that matters. So there should be no difference in my experience with my children.

But there is. My son and I share common ground through his current experience as it mirrors my own youth. I’ve walked the path that he’s walked down, so there’s a comfort level associated with him. My relationship with my daughter has required me to step out of what I know and see the world with an entirely new perspective.

Of her own volition, my daughter became interested in babies, princesses, and all the traditional things that some would say stereotypically define a girl. My wife and I left her the choice to select her toys (and with a bunch left over from her older brother, there were no shortage from which to choose), yet she gravitated towards these choices on her own – and forced me to come along for the ride. And, in the end, it’s hard to cling to those youthful ideals of masculinity when you’re one the ground playing with your daughter’s Princess dolls.

The 17-year-old version of me may have laughed at seeing a grown man playing with dolls. But the 32-year-old version of me knows that young punk doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about. They say that a parent’s job is to teach their children, but it is with great thanks that I can say that my children have taught me the most important lesson of all – what it truly means to be a man.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

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

Stars Aligned for Martin to Pull a Trudeau

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Is it fair to say that Paul Martin got Kim Campbelled? And since we’re looking at former Prime Ministers, with a minority government always a sketchy and short-lived proposition, will he be able to pull a Pierre Trudeau and rise to power for one last legacy-making tour of duty?

As the Liberal leadership race slowly trudges along, time is running short for a suitable candidate to step to the fore. Big names like Frank McKenna and John Manley dropped out early in the process; others have question marks attached to their names – such as Michael Ignatieff, Belinda Stronach, and former Ontario NDP leader Bob Rae; and others, like Joe Fontana, David McGuinty, and Ken Dryden may choose to play the long-shot role in a wide-open race.

But time is not on the Liberals’ side. And if Stephen Harper attempts to be too aggressive with his budget and force a non-confidence vote, Canadians could find themselves heading back to the polls for the third time in two years. And, for Martin, the third time may prove to be the charm.

After 10 years of waiting – with a couple in exile – and a stellar reputation as a tough, but fiscally prescient, finance minister, Martin swam up to the head seat in the wake of Jean Chrétien’s departure from the PMO. Of course, as we found out, the waves created by the Chrétien government ended up drowning Martin and served as the anchor that dragged him and his party down.

Like Kim Campbell, who’s known less for being the first female Prime Minister, and more for being the final nail in the Progressive Conservative party’s coffin, Martin will be remembered for the brevity of his political reign. His entire Prime Ministerial legacy will be defined by his predecessor’s actions and how they stained his tenure.

That is, unless he gets another chance. If an election is called sooner than later, the Liberal Party might have to look to its past to resurrect its future. And it’s not unprecedented, even within the party’s own history.

Back in 1979, with a sliding economy, a public rapidly tiring of his perceived attitude, and increasing debt, Pierre Trudeau was forced to call an election in 1979. After suffering a defeat to Joe Clark, Trudeau announced his retirement, only to return to power after a vote of no confidence brought down the Tory minority. Trudeau’s return to majority prominence offered him the opportunity to polish his reputation, forge a new Constitution ratified by nine of the 10 provinces, and go into history as one of the country’s most dynamic leaders – love him or hate him. After a self-proclaimed long walk in the snow, Trudeau retired, on his own terms, in 1984.

Martin, on the other hand, spent the majority of his time fighting off the Mr. Dithers label that was placed on him by The Economist. However, a more apt title would have been The Fireman, as the beleaguered Prime Minister spent his 27 months putting out the myriad of blazes left behind by his predecessor: AdScam and the Gomery Report, Income Trust, and – of course – the perceived culture of entitlement that 13 years of unchallenged leadership had created within the Grit rank-and-file.

Now, the opportunity is there for Paul Martin to return to the ranks of the Liberal leadership, brandishing a humbled sword and commitment to honesty in the battle against a rapidly beleaguered Conservative Party with no natural ally in a fractured House of Commons. While the Liberals of the last Parliament could find some affiliation with the NDP and left-leaning views of the Bloc, the Conservatives are on their own island. Their skills in consensus-building will be put to the test if they are able to withstand the early assaults that will greet their minority status.

Of course, the other parties will also have to gauge the public’s appetite for yet another expensive election campaign. They’ll have to determine whether a less-than-ideal budget is more appealing than being blamed for causing even more political fatigue within the electorate. And, depending on how aggressively Prime Minister Harper plays his cards, they may have to ante up earlier in the game than they would like.

If that’s the case, look for Martin to be called back to the table, because no one else has shown that they’re ready to go all-in. They say that politics is a game and, for the foreseeable future, the Canadian version is looking more and more like a high-stakes came of poker.

And maybe, like Trudeau before him, Martin will get the chance to reshape his legacy into one that’s more appealing to him.

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