Intellectual Darwinism Doesn’t Always Cull Weak

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

The dangerous thing about natural selection is that it’s not always the weakest members of the human herd that end up getting culled – often times through their moronic behaviour suffer the effects of their lack of intelligence.

Case in point is a recent story out of New Millford, Connecticut. It seems that a weekend party turned macabre when some intellectually deficient reveller decided that tossing a quarter-full keg into a blazing fire would be cool or fun (please note that the intentions of the thrower are all based upon speculation – but it seems like a normal thing for someone taking the risk of killing their all-too-rare brain cells would do.)

Unfortunately, our perpetrator in this sad story didn’t have a firm grasp on basic physics or chemistry for that matter.

As you can imagine, flames plus beer plus confined area led to a build-up of pressure which was too much for the keg – which was not designed for such an activity – to take. In the end, the ensuing explosion and shrapnel flying through the air at an extreme rate of speed and force, killed a 22-year-old man and injured seven others who presented to a local hospital with cuts and burns.

Sadly, it’s probably not the last time something like this will happen. And we’re powerless to make it stop.

That’s because even the brightest of us — those who believe we’ve climbed a few rungs up the Darwinian evolutionary ladder — get the urge to survey the land from our lofty perch and think we’d be able to perform a triple-pike dive and live to tell the tale.

We’ve all done things we’re not proud of. We’ve all done things that we look back upon and chuckle with friends, amazed that we didn’t get more hurt. But usually those are activities that only affect ourselves – and if we caused ourselves severe, permanent damage, we’d be resigned to the fact that it was self-inflicted.

What’s worse is when someone else’s stupidity negatively impacts your life. Take, for example, our aforementioned New Millford friends. Imagine you are at this party and that you’ve taken all the requisite precautions. Since it’s outdoors, you’ve worn appropriate clothing, or even sprayed an insect repellant with DEET – just in case! You’ve arranged for – or are — a designated driver. Essentially, you’ve done everything in your power to ensure that you have protected yourself from the potential hazards that this bush bash may present.

That is, every hazard except the moron who decides to toss a keg into a roaring flame.

There are those who like to throw out the statement that any day we could meet tragedy. They’ll state that we can simply walk off the curb one day and get hit by a bus. But that’s not the truth of the matter. In general, we look both ways before crossing, we don’t stand so close to the side of the road so as to worry about falling into the path of oncoming traffic, and – most importantly – we don’t have morons chucking busses at us, foiling our best laid safety plans.

It’s all fun and games until someone loses an eye. You’ve said it, we’ve all said it, and we’ve all chuckled about it. Unfortunately, some of our revelry – especially that which is influenced by the presence of alcohol – can lead to painful consequences. Unfortunately, most of the time it’s others who get hurt.

Drunk drivers are a prime example of this. But there are others: kids swinging a baseball bat rarely hit themselves – but they’ll nail the poor kid walking by. Throwing snowballs into traffic seems funny until you scare the bejeezus out of the poor, unsuspecting driver (who has probably checked all mirrors, buckled up for safety, and recently replaced their brakes) who then swerves into on-coming traffic.

While it would be nice to think that social and intellectual Darwinism culls the weakest from the herd, the sad fact of the matter is that the rest of us often suffer the brunt of a bad decision made by someone else, out of our control.

And if you don’t believe me, ask some of those partygoers in New Millford whether they thought keg tossing was going to be on the agenda.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Eschewing Courtesy May Be “Right” Move

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

An empty seat waiting for the music to stop on the Liberal leadership’s game of musical chairs, a party leader without a seat looking to make history, a former mayor returning to the fray after six years south of the border, and a former city councilor and radio host with a history of community work. Why, it looks like the sleepy Forest City has received quite a wake-up call with Stephen Harper’s snap by-election call.

And because of the make-up of the contenders vying for this federal seat, his bold move may end up working out perfectly as his polarizing, right-wing candidate could benefit from a split vote on the left.

When former Liberal MP Joe Fontana stepped down from his London North-Centre riding to take a stab at the mayor’s office, there was much talk about which Liberal leadership contender would be parachuted in to legitimize their position within the House of Commons.

Who’d have thought that since that first hint of a parachuting candidate into the region, the skies would soon be filled with strategically chosen MP-wannabes airlifted in for a shot at what’s traditionally been a non-descript riding.

The riding, traditionally a Liberal stronghold, now faces a Nov. 27 th election without a Liberal candidate. And while the Grits are crying foul about how the Prime Minister didn’t respect good ol’ Canadian common courtesy, they still find themselves behind the eight ball when it comes to time. Suggestions have been made that if either Bob Rae or Gerard Kennedy win the Liberal leadership, they’d suddenly find a home in London North-Centre. However, those best laid plans have been skewered by Harper’s decision. So in the end, the Liberals are left scrambling for a warm body to step in as the immediate favourite for this riding that bleeds red.

What makes what is traditionally a dull by-election process intriguing are the contenders to the throne. The intrigue was started with the sudden announcement that former London mayor Dianne Haskett was coming back to The Forest City after a six year exile. Haskett’s sudden return from Washington, combined with Harper’s snap announcement, have sent the conspiracy theorists a-twitter with the idea that this scenario was created through back-room planning and cunning – and it’s probably not too far from the truth.

Adding to the excitement is the announcement that Elizabeth May, the new leader of the Green Party, will run in the riding in an attempt to enable her suddenly surging party to earn its first seat – and to give the federal leader a legitimate voice in Ottawa. With the most recent Decima poll indicating that the Green Party enjoys 10 per cent support of decided voters, May’s political star power may create some interest in a left-leaning community.

Finally, former city councilor Megan Walker has made her intentions known that she’s seeking the NDP nomination. While not as big name-wise as the aforementioned duo, Walker’s been a fixture in the community, working in radio and supporting a number of community organizations, specifically those supporting women’s issues.

And while it’s easy to write this riding off as a Liberal win, there are so many intriguing sub-plots to this election that no one can accurately predict right now where this is going to go. Through name recognition out the window – all the candidates (even the unnamed Liberal) have it. So other factors will play an even greater role in the final decision.

Haskett was a polarizing figure in London politics, which was no better evidenced by her choice to not issue a Gay Pride day proclamation, because of her personal belief – a decision led her to face the wrath of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. In addition, Haskett also famously withdrew from campaigning for the last three weeks of the 1997 mayoral election – and still won. Love her or hate her, Londoners all have an opinion.

What works for Haskett is that she’s the only right winger in the region. And with a potential of three left-leaning candidates to split the vote, maybe Harper’s snap election call will turn out to be politically savvy.

After all, the Liberals are a rudderless ship for the time being, the Green Party is too green, and the NDP are the traditional bridesmaid – people seem to be willing to support their ideals, but not willing to hand them the reins of power. So what happens should none of Haskett’s opponents emerge as a candidate for left-leaners to rally around? The vote gets split, and the Conservatives can come up the middle to retake the riding that’s been Liberal since 1988.

Sure, the other parties may claim it’s not courteous, but I’m sure Harper will take victory over courtesy any day of the week!

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

NHL Heading in the Wrong Direction

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Injuries are a part of any sport and at times they can be catastrophic. But the NHL must take steps immediately to minimize any and all possible risks, because the future of their product depends on it.

We’ve all, sadly, been privy to vicious acts that have resulted in severe head injuries. From Todd Bertuzzi’s mauling of Steve Moore, to Marty McSorely’s lumberjack impersonation on Donald Brashear’s head, and Alexander Perezhogin’s similar two-hander to the head of Garrett Stafford in the AHL, we’ve seen extreme examples of head injuries caused by an outside force.

Hell, this is nothing new. Ace Bailey’s career was cut short due to a severe head injury inflicted by Eddie Shore back in 1933. But what is new is how innocuous acts are now having devastating effects on players throughout the league.

Just ask the Montreal Canadiens’ Aaron Downey, who was knocked for roller coaster’s worth of loops by a check by Robin Regehr. A clean check. No elbow, no leaving the feet, just a good solid hit against the boards.

We’re seeing this more and more, and ironically it’s the improvements in the game that has created this detrimental effect. Simply put, the game’s a heck of a lot faster than it used to be as players are able to move faster, without being impeded or slowed by hooks, holds, and interference. Players are bigger, stronger, and wearing high-tech suits of armour on the ice. Combine all these factors and it’s amazing that we’re not seeing even more injuries.

The NHL can’t turn a blind eye on this. Sad to say, Aaron Downey’s not going to get it done. As nice of a guy he is and as much as his teammates love him, he’s a plugger bordering on goon status. But hopefully we won’t need to see an established star – or, perish the thought, the future of the league like Sidney Crosby or Alex Ovechkin, go down for the count before people get up in arms.

Hopefully someone’s career – or worse, their life — doesn’t have to end violently before the league steps in for the good of everyone.

Yet it’s not a promising thought. After all, this is a league that refuses to force its players to don eye protection, when all the benefits far outweigh any perceived negative impact. This is a league that allows players to carry around metal weapons with no give – unlike the old wooden sticks that would snap like a twig. This is a league that caters far too much to the guys with the sloped frontal lobes who think Rock ’em, Sock ’em hockey is the only way to prove one’s manhood.

It won’t work until the suits in the front office start treating the game like a business. Despite all the marketing and promotion efforts they’ve undertaken, they still don’t seem to get that the players are the currency upon which their businesses are traded. If common sense doesn’t work, then maybe corporate economics will.

The players are employees. If the league decides that the dress code includes better, more protective headgear that’s actually strapped on securely, complete with facial protection, that’s their right. If they mandate mouthguards, then no amount of bitching from the boys in the union should matter.

Nor should the union brothers protest too much. Their best-before dates expire rapidly, so anything that can be done to maximize their earning potential should be welcomed with open arms. Unfortunately, they’re too busy grabbing themselves and proving their manhood to embrace the concept of personal safety.

We don’t have to legislate body checking out of the game. What we have to do is legislate better, mandatory protective gear into the game. Teams have to look at their players as investments and do everything they can do to ensure maximum return on that investment.

Just as a construction site mandates proper headgear, so too should the NHL embrace tougher restrictions on what its employees wear. Better helmets, mouthguards, and other protective gear should not just be the norm, they should be legislated into existence.

But instead the league focusses on new designs for its jerseys, so it’s players can look better. Let’s just hope in the future we don’t have to admire how well a player’s looking as he’s thrashing on the ice because we prized style over substance.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Turner Fiasco Shows Tories Fuzzy on Accountability

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Good for Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Nothing says openness and accountability in government better than censure!

Garth Turner, the Member of Parliament representing Halton, Ontario has been suspended from the Conservative caucus. The reason? Being too uppity and not toeing the party line. Funny, I thought the Tories ran their last campaign on bringing accountability back to politics. I guess that accountability doesn’t extend to an MP’s responsibility to their constituents.

His transgressions? Turner voiced displeasure with his party’s apparent about-face on party hopping when it because convenient for them in the form of David Emerson, seemingly swallowing the outrage that overwhelmed them when Belinda Stronach’s defection compelled Conservative MPs Helena Guergis and Joe Preston to bring forth legislation to prevent this sort of then-nefarious activity.

Turner also voiced opposition to the party’s fiscal and environmental policies. And, perish the thought, Turner regularly kept his constituents abreast of the inner workings of the political scene via his blog.

What it all boils down to is that Turner has been suspended for one simple reason – representing the will and interest of his constituents, and not making party politics a priority even if it swims against the tide of his electorate.

I suppose Mr. Harper can be excused for thinking that the voters of the Halton region were choosing a party, not a representative. But what we do through the very act of casting our ballot – whether municipally, provincially, or federally – is voting for someone who can go and represent our interests. Not the interest of the party necessarily, although those will sometime march in time, but more importantly the interests of the region.

So by suspending Turner for using the voice that his constituency gave him, he’s essentially silenced an entire group of voters. More despicably, he’s shown that he doesn’t value their opinions.

A representative is supposed to represent. Not just the few who drink the party Kool-Aid, but the entire constituency – even those who didn’t vote for him or her. They are commissioned, through the electoral process, to work diligently to ensure that our voices are heard loud and clear, and that everything is done to ensure that the needs and desires of our communities are heard on the national stage.

Of course, by forcing Turner to exit Stage Left, the residents of Halton no longer even have a voice in the chorus – they’re forced to watch this production from afar.

How exactly is that accountability? How is that more responsible government? In essence, we need more Garth Turners in Ottawa – and at all levels of government! We need more people who are willing to speak out for the interests of those who voted them into power, even if it means at times not toeing the party line.

And by suspending him from the Conservative caucus, Harper effectively has told Conservative voters in the region that they were wrong during the last election. These are people who voted for Turner, partly because of his Conservative affiliation – and now their voices, which they lend to Turner, will be forced to sing a different tune, whether that’s Green or Liberal, it’s not the same song that they originally requested to hear. And there better not be a peep out of one single Conservative if Turner jumps to another party – they’ve lost that right with Mr. Emerson. Of course, Turner himself may demand a by-election so that the constituents in Halton have an opportunity to have their true voices heard – not one that’s been distorted by the political machine.

Turner was duly elected as a representative first and foremost. Ideally, constituents are voting for the person they feel best represents them, regardless of party affiliation. Usually, a particular party will attract a particular candidate who appeals to the morals, values, and intents of those predisposed to vote a certain way. However, there are no absolutes. No matter what political party you support, chances are you’re hard-pressed to find any one candidate or party that perfectly embodies all your beliefs. There’s give and take.

Unfortunately, by getting the gift of accountability and responsible representation from the candidate for whom they’ve voted, the people of Halton have had their voice in Parliament taken away from them. For a party that preaches accountability, how do you account for that?

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Toews Bats .500 on Crime

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

While Justice Minister Vic Toews swung for the fences in tabling tough new three-strikes legislation, the fact of the matter is that he only batted .500 – making solid contact on getting tough with crime, but whiffing badly when it comes to effective prevention of future crimes.

Similar to “three strikes” legislation present south of the border, Toews new proposal would mandate indefinite prison sentences for violent and sexual offenders after their third occurrence. In addition, it would be the burden of the offender to convince a judge as to why they are no longer a dangerous offender as a condition of their release.

Whether it’s political posturing or not Toews’ motion is a step in the right direction. Unfortunately it’s too much a step in the Right direction, with not enough consideration for the traditionally Left leanings. This three-strikes legislation focuses too much on punishment and not enough on prevention.

Simply put, you’d have to rape three people, or commit violent acts on three separate occasions to qualify for this strict punishment – and that’s three times too long. And nowhere are criminals compelled to deal with their tendencies while in prison. Instead, they’re able to sit in prison, fermenting their anger and rage, and learning new and interesting ways to commit new crimes from their prison cohabitants.

Where’s the prevention? Where are the measures to help people learn to integrate into society? And where’s the acknowledgement that we have to treat the disease, not just put long-term bandages on the symptoms.

Toews’ measure is a reflection of an increasingly agitated Canadian community that’s fed up with perceived leniency in the punishment of our society’s criminals. He’s preaching to a converted choir of disgruntled voters who are experiencing growing concern for the safety of their city streets. And while harsher sentencing may be an effective knee-jerk reaction, it’s one that’s going to end as effective as a kick in the teeth.

It’s not enough to put criminals away and forget about them. They must be dealt with and they must deal with the ramifications of their actions. First, longer prison sentences shouldn’t be where it stops. There should be life-long after-release monitoring for violent and sexual criminals. Just like we tried to do with Karla Homolka after the fact, we should in the future make regular police checks, inspections, and monitoring a part of all future sentences for violent and sexual criminals. If entering into a life-long relationship with your local police station doesn’t get some people to reconsider a life of crime, I don’t know what will.

Secondly, while in prison, violent and sexual criminals must attend and participate in psychological counselling and other programs designed to reintegrate them into the mainstream society. Unfortunately, our prison system is better at removing than rehabilitating and once one is released from jail, they often find themselves on a circuitous route back to their cell because they can’t cope with the pressures and temptations that await them outside the prison walls. Unfortunately, as most programs of this nature are currently voluntary, they don’t need to attend and won’t get the help that may assist them in their transition.

So take away the choice. Weekly mandatory therapy sessions for the duration of one’s prison sentence should be the norm. That way we can ensure that whatever issues have driven these people off the path that most of us take, at least we can do our utmost to steer them back on track.

Any complaints? Too bad. Criminal lose the right to be protected by our society and our laws due to the very fact that they’ve shown an inability to play by our rules. You can’t contravene the expected norms of our society and then expect that same society to protect you. Hey, you can’t play by our rules, don’t be upset when we change the game.

Finally, why do we have to wait for three strikes? Why do more people have to be victimized before we act? Why not make an effort before someone gets to this point, so that other innocent members of our society don’t have to have their lives shattered. Let’s work to root out the cause of this type of violent activity and put in place measures to counter it. Whether that’s support lines, safe houses or centres for those about to commit an act of violence, or programs to help people deal with their emotions in a productive and socially acceptable manner, we have to invest in the security of our society.

Yes, the measures will cost more in the short-term, but the long-term benefits for our society are priceless. Locking them up and throwing away the key won’t work – finding the key to unlock their inner demons and helping them deal with it might.

In baseball parlance, three strikes means you’re out – but wouldn’t it be better if everyone in our society was playing on the same team?

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved