New/Old Hockey Makes the Grade

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

It was inevitable, of course. The whispers of discontent regarding the new version of hockey are slowly working their way up to a dull roar. But the danger is that we’re not seeing the forest for the trees – and clear-cutting the whole region is not the answer.

You put certain media types together in a confined space and the cynicism comes out. In their hypercritical, hyperbole-friendly manner of existence sports reporters – especially the bad ones – tend to go overboard in their reactions either one way or the other. That’s why it comes as no surprise that a pair of reporters covering a recent London Knights contest were trying to outdo each other in their negativity.

“So much for that crackdown on holding,” says Mr. Cynic.

“Yeah, it was just a matter of time,” replies Mr. Curmudgeon.

“Look at that – that hook would have got you two minutes at the beginning of the season,” opines Mr. Cynic.

“Yep, it’s back to the old hockey,” concurs Mr. Curmudgeon.

Now, let’s rewind to the beginning of the year when the complaints would have been like this:

“Wow, he just tapped him with the stick and it’s a penalty,” Mr. Cynic notes.

“Yep, you can’t even breathe on a guy without getting sent to the box,” Mr. Curmudgeon replies.

“How can you play defence like this? What’s next, looking at a guy’ll get you five?” retorts Mr. Cynic.

“Yep, this new hockey’s basically pond hockey with boards,” concludes Mr. Curmudgeon.

So you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. But beyond the hypercritical who see every missed hook and every minor hack that gets ignored as evidence of a return to the dark ages, today’s game is better than it was just two years ago (well, for the NHL – last year for everyone else.)

After an early feeling-out period where defenders were overcompensating for the stricter enforcement of obstruction-type penalties, players, refs, and coaches alike appear to have come to terms with the new NHL. Refs may not be so quick with the whistle, but that’s in large part to the better mutual understanding of the game.

What we have is a faster-paced game, with more offence. Defence is still a part of the game, but it has to be based on intelligence and positioning, not just goons getting their big meat hooks into approaching attackers. We have games where fans know that even if their team is two or three goals down in the third period, there’s still the opportunity to come back. We have more end-to-end rushes and more counter-attacks. We have, in essence, the game for which we’ve been asking for the past few years.

So why the complaints? Why the grumbling? Simply put, fear. We’re afraid of letting the game deteriorate to the point that it was two years ago. We let the game deteriorate on our watch, and we’re wary of letting it happen again.

What’s worked? What hasn’t? It seems that listening to fans, players, and general managers paid off for the NHL brass. Shocking that those most directly involved in the game would have the most insight into how to fix it.

Simply put, the NHL has scored on most fronts: the elimination of the centre red line has opened up the flow of the game and eliminated the countless – and pointless – offside calls. The restriction on the size of goalie equipment has not turned all goalies into human sieves, nor has it unnecessarily put their lives at risk. Even the contentious no-goalie zones in the corner of the rink has worked out, reducing, but not banning goaltender involvement in puck control. Best off all, we’re enjoying a faster game without having to impact the size of the ice surface. The game got faster without the rink getting wider, so purists – and money-conscious owners – are happy.

Overall the game is faster, the skill players are showcasing their wares, and fans are being treated to a level of hockey they haven’t seen since the late 80s/early 90s. The old/new NHL is working – but it’s not time to rest on its laurels.

The league must do something about making visors mandatory. Fans pay good money and invest in their heart and souls in these players – the least they could to is protect themselves. As well, something has to be done to encourage hitting. While speed is a big part of the game’s resurgence, the body check should not be phased out as a result. Because of overzealous refs and a lack of understanding about how the rules would be enforced, many players shied away from laying the body. But that has to change.

Hockey at its best is fast-paced, hard-hitting, and intense. We’re part of the way there – it’s not time to stop now. For the first time in year’s the NHL is creating a buzz. Now they just have keep on keeping on, and not ruin the momentum.

But for a league that’s long been known to shoot itself in the foot, will reaching this successful height prove to be too dizzying? Fans everywhere are holding their breath (but not their opponent’s stick!) in anticipation.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Latest Poll a Test of Lefty Faith

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

While some may look at the latest Decima Research poll as the final nail in a long-delayed Liberal coffin, it may in fact be the defibrillating jolt that the Grits need to breathe new life into their campaign.

It’s serious now for many Canadians. The debates are out of the way, the holidays are past, and the dull grey January weather is the perfect background for playing out this political drama. And with the latest poll results showing the resurgent Conservative Party enjoying a nine-point lead amongst decided voters and those who are leaning in one direction, we’ve come to the time when the left-leaning voters have to make their choice.

It’s a test of faith that will decide the outcome of the next election.

Nine points is nothing to laugh about. At 39 per cent of the decided voters, Stephen Harper’s Conservatives are sniffing a majority government. Alone on the right, they’re not only enjoying voters’ lack of trust in the Liberals, but also their apparent belief in the power of Jack Layton’s New Democratic Party. Even in Quebec, the Conservatives appear to be working their way back from the brink of extinction to become an actual viable alternative, as evidenced by their six point increase of support that comes courtesy of the Bloc’s precipitous drop of 11 per cent support.

So the path of the current election is clear. If voters hold true to their stated intentions, the Conservatives will ride to a majority and the Liberals will be swept from power. But in this majority scenario, so too does the left-of-centre influence find itself on the outside looking in.

That’s where those left-leaning voters have to do a gut check and see where their priorities lie. And it’s the only hope the Liberals have to retain any semblance of power.

As Layton has expressed repeatedly through the campaign, he feels the Conservatives are just wrong on the issue and he appears to be angling for a stronger role for his NDP candidates in the next House of Commons. This campaign strategy is all fine and dandy when we’re looking at a minority government because, as he’s shown, a smaller party can have a disproportionate impact on the fortunes of the government. But in a Conservative majority, how much influence will those powerless MPs really have? In essence, Layton could find himself with more NDPs in the House of Commons, but with less power than he enjoyed in the last House with fewer representatives.

In last year’s election, polls pointed to a dead heat between the Conservatives and Liberals as voting day approached. Apparently, once voters got to the polls, they chose to vote strategically and not with their heart as NDP support migrated to the Liberal camp in order to keep the Tories and their alleged right-wing agenda out of power.

If lefties were scared last year when the polls showed a neck-in-neck race, they must be quaking in their boots now at the prospect of a Conservative majority.

Best of all, for the Liberals, is that the numbers are so striking the average Canadian can easily do the math and draw their own conclusions. There’s no need for the Grits to unleash the smear-and-fear strategy – the writing’s already on the wall and the voters don’t need anyone to spell it out.

Unfortunately for Layton, it appears that most Canadians view the NDP as a wonderful party to act as the country’s conscience, but not one to actually take Canada’s reigns and guide it in the next House in a leadership role. So that leaves the tried-and-tested Liberals.

Those soft-NDP voters, and even those disgruntled right-wing Liberals who have drifted to the Conservatives, have to take a look at the strength of their convictions. The reality of a government dominated by a right-of-centre party is upon us and they have to choose what they want their Canada to look like.

Much like Quebec, where elections are less about parties than ideologies, this federal election is shaping up to be a battle not between individual candidates, but rather a contest pitting right versus left. The battle is at hand and the right has their champion. The leftist camp has to decide whether to continue to split its forces, or consolidate their power into one front.

Voting with their hearts or their minds – it’s a test of faith for the left in which the country’s future rests.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Money Yes, Pride No

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Apparently, when it comes to national pride, some of our athletes’ hearts can only be bought – not donated.

More and more Canadian athletes are coming forth to proactively decline even the notion of carrying the Maple Leaf in the opening ceremonies in the upcoming Winter Olympics in Torino, Italy. The general consensus is that the pressures of competing and the energy that’s required to do so precludes them from expending any extra energy in carrying the flag.

Interestingly enough, Catriona Le May Doan didn’t suffer from that expenditure of extra energy when she proudly carried the Canadian flag in the Salt Lake City games before winning speed skating gold. I suppose we’ll always wonder how much better Gaetan Boucher would have competed in Sarajevo without the burden of carrying the flag – after all, he only won two golds and a bronze. What if?

From Silvie Daigle’s gold to Brian Orser’s silver, the flag has not really had a negative impact on those that carry it. Sure, Jean-Luc Brassard and Kurt Browning had less-than-stellar performances after being the nation’s flag bearer, but is that really to be blamed on the opening ceremonies?

The Canadian Olympic Committee has asked each sport to submit its nominee as a flag-bearer. From that pool, the committee will then choose who they feel would be the best representative of Canada on this international stage. And while most of us would give considerable parts of our reproductive organs to have this honour, there are those athletes who are choosing to look a gift horse in the mouth.

I can only hope they get kicked by it.

It seems when the cheques come in funding the training and living expenses for our elite athletes, it’s alright to be a Canadian. But to take part in a deeply symbolic ritual that stokes the flames of passion and nationalism in the hearts of those who can get no closer than their couch to the event – well, that’s crossing a line.

I’m sure that the flag is heavy and cumbersome. In fact, I can understand how these elite athletes can get fatigued by walking the WHOLE length of a stadium carrying this awkward pole. And then, when the wind kicks up and the flag billows majestically in the evening breeze – unfurling to show the world the beauty and uniqueness of our national flag – well, yes that could get a little tricky on the ol’ balance.

Normally I don’t care about the Olympics. And, to be honest, neither do most of you who are reading this. The fact is that Olympic fever spreads across this country like a plague every couple of years (alternating for summer and winter, of course). Sports and athletes that we normally don’t care about or support by attending any of the intervening competitions or meets during the other three years, suddenly become front-page fodder. Guys that normally couldn’t tell a salchow from a slapshot are suddenly debating the inconsistencies of international judging and its negative impact in North American competitors.

And once these Olympics are over, the spotlight will fade on these same athletes well before the last ember of the torch is extinguished. In the interval, they have the attention of the world on their hands – they should relish it. When you toil in obscurity for so many years, why turn your back on the opportunity to have your moment in the sun?

Maybe it’s a rejection of the band-wagon jumping fans who only care about these athletes when there’s a medal around their necks. And that’s understandable to an extent. Fans are quick to condemn these athlete’s when they don’t show up on the podium, despite not showing any concern for their fates in the intervening years.

But at the end of the day, Canadians are the ones who fund the athletes’ experience. The competitors supply the drive and motivation, but we supply the means. To reject the flag is a rejection of Canadians. Not only has the average fan invested in the athlete’s experience, but to be offered the privilege of carrying our national flag is an honour – and to reject it outright is an insult, no matter what your reason is.

One of the greatest Olympic images is of the countries where these athletes struggle each day to live – not just compete. And when they’ve overcome such overwhelming odds to show up on the national stage their pride is palpable. Remember back to the first time that athletes represented individual countries formerly under the Soviet Republic – they took pride in their flag and their country. Perhaps we live too pampered of a life to appreciate what it means to be Canadian. Perhaps these athletes should look around at their co-competitors and learn first-hand what it means to have pride in your nation.

These athletes who have peremptorily removed their names from consideration as a flag bearer have to wonder – should they go on to win gold, will it be tarnished by their symbolic rejection of the very nation they’re supposed to represent.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Film Can Be Memorable For all the Right Reasons

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

While some will dismiss the arrival of the film Karla as just another sign of Hollywood profiteering and sensationalism, the fact of the matter is that films of this ilk can actually serve a positive role by forcing us to remember society’s ill – and vow to never let them be repeated.

For many, June 20, 2006 will be a day to be regretted. There will be those who denounce the film in full throat without viewing it first. There will be those who argue that the topic of this film should mandate its immediate banning from screens in this country. But those people are missing the opportunity that a film of this nature can provide.

If done responsibly, and by that I’m not referring to the Tori Spelling Movie-of-the-Week treatment that many of these sensational films undergo, films of this nature can make us remember the human tragedy behind the headlines. They can force us to understand that lives were impacted, real people like us were involved, and they can leave an indelible imprint on our hearts and souls.

The announced release date of Karla closely follows the DVD release of the Quebecois filmAurore, which is a heart-wrenching remake based on the true story of a young girl who was systemically tortured and eventually beaten to death by her step-mother. The movie, without being gratuitous, conveys the horror of these events while allowing us to look at the people involved. We are able to see how this tragedy was allowed to unfold and we, as viewers, are left with the burning desire to do our part to ensure that this never happens again.

And that’s where film, and its little sibling television, can assert their dominance as the most effective story-tellers in modern society. A sensitive portrayal by a team of writers, directors, and actors can make a tragedy relevant to viewers from all walks of life. They move the principals from the realm of quaint stereotypes to living, breathing humans like all of us. Instead of archetypes of evil and good, they become flawed, realistic entities to whom we can better relate.

We are presented with tragedy each and every day of our lives. The 24-hour news networks provide us with an ever-changing – and never-ending – reel of the worst that humanity has to offer. But, as a coping mechanism, we are able to dehumanize the principals involved in the situation and turn it from a slice of reality into a spectacle at which we can alternately sympathize with and marvel at. Today’s tsunami turns into tomorrow Hurricane devastation. And we move on to the next tragedy as the previous horror finds itself back to the recesses of our minds.

What film can do is bring a slice of history back to the fore. If done with empathy and skill, they can leave a feeling and message that will resonate long into the future for the viewer.

It’s the human story that brings us closer. For many, the Holocaust is a tragedy beyond the scope of our comprehension. There comes a time when we fail to be able to adequately process the idea of so much death and wanton destruction. But for many of us the face of the Holocaust tragedy belongs to one little girl, Anne Frank, whose life is revealed to us through her diary until its abrupt end – offering an ellipsis wherein we fill in the tragic ending. Reading a textbook of the Holocaust tragedy can provide us with the essential facts and statistics. Reading the personal stories at the Wiesenthal Center provides us with the soul. Through the commitment of the individual’s stories to methods that will ensure their posterity, we will be able to put a human face on the tragedy for generations to come. Instead of being reduced to numbers, the victims of this horror will always remain human – and that’s the greatest way to ensure that we remain vigilant in ensuring that this tragedy does not get repeated.

Currently the continent of Africa is being decimated by the twin demons of genocide and AIDS. But we are unable to adequately empathize with the depth of the tragedy because there is no singular human face. There are millions of stories on the continent, but not one has been told to the degree where we feel moved to rally behind the issue.

Film can tear down the protective wall with which we distance ourselves from these nightmares. Film can make us accountable to our souls and compel us to do whatever we can do. Instead of desensitizing us to violence and aggression, a well-done piece can actually make us more sensitive to the issues at hand and drive us to be more vigilant when it comes to taking a stand against their existence in our society.

When it comes to the Karla film, we’ll have to wait to see if the parties involved chose to make a quick buck by profiting on a dynamic story, or if they lived up to the potential that the medium has to make a difference in our lives.

While time heals all wounds – even revulsion — humanizing a tragedy through film may help ensure that those young women who lost their lives remain a rallying point for society to ensure that history does not repeat itself.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

A New Perspective on the New Year

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

As we age we often lament the loss of things that we enjoyed in our youth. But that mentality is short-sighted when one considers all that we gain in return. All in all, it’s hardly a fair trade.

Like many of you, when I was younger I rang in New Year’s Eve as hard as possible. From nights at the bars to house parties to rock star-esque trashing of hotel rooms, New Year’s Eve was a time for revelry – usually fuelled by alcohol.

In years past, I greeted the New Year with a bottle in both hands. This year, I quietly welcomed the New Year with my daughter in my arms. And there’s really no comparison.

It’s been a steady descent into adulthood over the past few years. Before we were rocking the streets of the town, now we calmly watch Dick Clark’s New Year’s Rockin’ Eve and ring in the New Year not with a gong, but with a quiet kiss and embraces with friends. The old me would wonder what’s wrong. The new me knows that it’s finally all right.

With two children, aged 11 and four, my wife and I no longer feel the need to go out and paint the town red. We’ve long realized the game of life isn’t won by partying or staying up all night. No, the game of life is won or lost based solely on who your teammates are. And I get more satisfaction now spending an evening at home with my family than I ever did bellying up to any bar and racing the rising sun home.

While I still have friends who continue to frequent clubs and bars, I can’t say that I have any inclination to join them. Instead of drinking myself into oblivion, I’d rather head home and remember every single moment that my son and daughter give to me. As I watch them grow – and as my son gets closer and closer to those teenage years – I realize that each passing page of the calendar means fewer opportunities to share their lives. And I’m not willing to let those moments go. And when I do go out, I don’t want to be stumbling arm in arm with some drinking buddy, but rather enjoying an evening on the arm of my wonderful wife.

So as I sat on our friends’ couch with my wife at my side and my four-year-old in my arms, I watched as my daughter vainly tried to hold out until midnight – less for the New Year’s celebration and more because of every child’s wish to stay awake. Instead of slamming down shots or squeezing another tune on the dance floor, I read to her the assortment of books she continued to bring to me.

At 11:56 p.m. she finally lost the battle, her eyes fluttering closed as she fell asleep in my arms. With my wife at my side and my son nearby, we counted down the last few moments of 2005 and greeted the New Year with smiles and hugs. Our daughter saw the arrival of 2006 through sleep-heavy eyes and promptly fell back to bed.

Shortly thereafter, as we drove the Montreal highways back to our temporary home, we watched the traffic that accompanied us on our route. It wasn’t the over-lubricated revellers that stumbled along the streets of our past, but fellow families heading back to their homes with similarly somnolent offspring in various states of repose in the backseats of their cars.

I realized that while I enjoyed the follies of my youth and don’t begrudge anyone their decision to keep living that life, I’m enjoying the company I’m currently keeping. And like most of us in the not-too-long-after-midnight traffic crowd I went home not regretting the life I’ve long since left behind, but fully embracing the life that I now enjoy.

Because, when it comes down to it, while holding a drink in each hand may have had its moments, they’re easily forgotten. Holding my child in my arms as she succumbs to the security and warmth of a father’s love – that’s a moment that’ll last forever. And I can’t think of a better way to ring in the New Year.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved