Let Monumental Mistake Go

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

What’s that adage about people in glass houses? Many Canadians are in an apoplectic fit over a few drunken morons who relieved themselves on the national war memorial – but aren’t they just doing physically what we’ve been doing symbolically for years?

Now that the suspects have been identified, average citizens and talking heads will be calling for the maximum punishment that the law will allow. They will be vilified in the court of public opinion and held up as all that’s wrong with the youth of this nation.

People will trot out mantras of respect for the veterans and the actions that they’ve undertaken – and, in a few months, we’ll have forgotten about the incident. And, unfortunately, we’ll have forgotten about our veterans – again.

What these kids did wasn’t an immature expression of political dissent – it was a dumb mistake. And, in fact, I’m willing to forgive both because of the fact that we live in a free country and we have to take the good with the bad.

Is urinating on a monument any more of an affront than burning a flag? Both can be graphic acts of protest and both can be repellant to the majority of Canadians at large. But our veterans didn’t just fight for respect, they fought for our right to speak and express ourselves freely.

And if, as it appears, that this is just a drunken act of foolishness, then I don’t think there’s too many of us who haven’t done something while under the influence that we regret after the fact. Fortunately, for the majority of us, those actions weren’t caught on tape.

We need to get over ourselves. These kids – two 18-year-olds and a 21-year-old – should have known better, but made a mistake. They’re probably terrified and embarrassed and they should simply come forth and make a public apology. Let them make reparations – something like community service or, more appropriately, cleaning out bedpans at a veterans’ hospital – and then let them get on with their lives.

Because, once we move on from them, maybe we’ll take a few moments and take a look at our own actions. The fall is precipitous from this high horse we’ve decided to perch ourselves upon. Yet our behaviour towards veterans, while not as overt, is in many ways just as despicable.

Every November 11 th we pay lip service to our veterans. We wear the poppies and watch the “so-sombre-so-we-must-be-honest” retrospective documentaries about our veterans. And, before the flowers wilt on the cenotaphs and monuments, we promptly shuffle the veterans to the recesses of our mind.

Where does our threshold for disgust lie? To me, a drunken mistake is less offensive than the idiots who disrespect our national anthem during a sporting event to bellow out “Go Team Go.” To me, a foolish action by kids who should have known better is more forgivable than those people who don’t know the lyrics to our national anthem or stand at attention in respectful silence when O Canada is being played.

In fact, I attended a junior hockey game around Remembrance Day last year where a couple of our few remaining veterans were being honoured. In what could have been a touching ceremony, some idiot was unable to quell his Neanderthal urges and decided to use a quiet part of the anthem to make a grab for his 15 seconds of fame, shouting out “Go Knights Go!”

Now tell me how that’s any more respectful? Tell me how a conscious decision to disrespect the song that represents this country – the song that represents the country that these veterans fought for – shouldn’t be held in less regard than what these kids did?

To me the issue is clear. In general, we don’t treat our veterans with the respect they deserve. We trot them out, in ever dwindling numbers, every November as a panacea to our guilty consciences. And then we shuffle them off again to be called upon when it’s time to make ourselves look good.

How many of us go and visit veterans during the rest of the year? How many of us pay the proper respect at our cenotaphs and monuments? How many of us ensure our children are aware of the sacrifices and efforts that their grandparents and great-grandparents made so that we could have the opportunity to enjoy the life we do today? How many of us make sure that the horrors that these veterans faced are never forgotten by passing down the memories to future generations?

Sadly, not enough. As a society, we love to make big shows of our faith – naming streets or highways after veterans, having big ceremonies on Remembrance Day. But it’s not the big displays that matter – it’s the little efforts we take each and every day that really count. And it’s those efforts that a significant number of us don’t do enough of.

So let’s lay off these kids, who obviously made an egregious mistake. After all, we’ve been pissing on the veterans for years ourselves.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Regulating Common Sense

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Again, another holiday weekend passes with thousands of highway traffic infractions, scores of drunk driving charges, and a few – a few too many – fatalities. And so it’s more evident than ever that if humanity isn’t enough, then technology must step in to fill the breach.

If we can’t regulate ourselves, then we need to have regulators. End point.

The technology exists, but it’s more politics than practicality that prevents automakers from installing drunk driving and speed regulators. And without the political pressure to do so, why would they incur any extra expense?

So how many more people have to die for us to get the point?

Every car should have an inhibitor that would prevent the starting of a vehicle when someone who is above the legal limit of alcohol is at the wheel. Currently those against the issue claim that having to blow into a testing device is too cumbersome and is punishing the innocent. To which I question what’s more inconvenient: having the comfort of knowing that everyone else on the road isn’t driving three sheets to the wind, or allowing the status quo and watching more and more people become irrecovably injured or killed?

Inconvenience me! Please.

In fact, where’s the argument? Unless you drive drunk, then you shouldn’t have a problem with this action? This isn’t a matter of Big Brother watching over you – it’s a matter of common sense. Unfortunately we’ve proven that common sense isn’t all that common.

As for speed, we have limits on the highway – and we have those who are willing to exceed those limits at all times. I admit, I’m one of them. In the city, I do my best to abide by the posted speed limits. But on our frequent trips down the 401 to Montreal and back, I can’t say I don’t cruise at a steady 120 or 130 kph, depending on the flow of traffic.

Of course, I’m also convinced that if I drove at 100 kph, the posted speed limit, I’d be posing more of a hazard than through my belief in keeping pace with the other vehicles around me.

So, raise the speed limit – and not just to 110 like Manitoba is proposing – but to 120 or 130. Our cars are faster, more responsive, and more effective than those that were in existence when the Trans-Canada highway was built. So let’s acknowledge that, raise the speed limit, and regulate vehicles so that they can’t exceed that speed.

Sure, that doesn’t affect the speeders in cities and on secondary highways, but it does reduce the need for police presence on the highways. It doesn’t eliminate it, mind you, as there are those who will continue to drive erratically – which is just as great of a danger – and those who will mechanically circumvent the regulator. But, for the rest of us, we’re good to go.

Naysayers point to the prohibitive cost of installing these tools, but that’s an argument rooted in fallacy and selective accounting. Yes, currently drunk driving regulators cost $1,000 US. But the simple economics of supply and mass production would mandate that if these regulators came standard with every North American produced car, then the cost would be minimized. Secondly, there are new and exciting technologies that would reduce the inconvenience factor as new tests will be able to detect the presence of alcohol through skin.

As well, insurance companies could get on board and would be able to reduce rates, knowing that there will be a precipitous drop in selective claims. Thus, any expenditure for a regulator could be made up – even within a year or two of vehicle ownership – through rebates and promotions from the insurance industry.

Finally, we would be able to deploy our already-stretched-thin police force in a more effective manner. Instead of wasting one of our finest on a day shift of pointing a radar gun at passing motorists, they could be better served tracking down people that are committing serious crimes! They could increase their presence in the cities instead of holding fort on a bleak stretch of paved shoulder on the highways of our nation.

Unfortunately, common sense isn’t all that common. And if humanity can’t take care of itself through organic means, then humanity has to protect itself through the magic of technology. I’ve yet to hear a convincing argument that would allow us to drive drunk. There is no human freedom that affords you the right to get behind the wheel after tying one on.

Arguments to the contrary? How about Transport Canada’s 2003 numbers that say that 902 lives were lost in accidents where a driver had been drinking. That’s 902 extremely compelling arguments – and those are just the fatalities. How many more people have been injured by drunk driving and excessive speeds?

How many more have to die before we realize that we have the technology to make a difference. We just need the political wherewithal to do something about it.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

The Last Words

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

As a man who values the English language, let me put this sentiment into a form that the American Literary Council will understand: I want tu beet yue with a shuhlaelee.

For those who aren’t fluent in idiot that translates to “I want to beat you with a shillelagh.

There is a movement afoot to simplify spelling and make it more phonetic, stating that it would help young children learn to read more quickly and would reduce the rate of illiteracy. And it’s a movement that’s been around, south of the border, for over 100 years.

Apparently, writing the way that I am and reading the way you are, is too much of a challenge and leaves English-speakers at a disadvantage to those speaking other languages, such as Spanish and German, whose words are spelled phonetically. According to the ALC, English has 42 sounds that are spelled in 400 different ways.

And that’s in the U.S. Can you image how they’d react to our extra u’s?

Empiric evidence is showing that the English language is being assaulted every day. Instant messaging has created its own sub-dialect of short forms and acronyms designed to save a few keystrokes – and long-term carpal tunnel syndrome – and those terms and phrases have entered into the mainstream.

Of course, the youth aren’t the originators of the acronym. Business has created its own jargon of FYI, ASAP, and QED!

Here’s a few more letters for all of you – STFU! Sorry, this is a family column.

It appears that more and more of us aren’t taking pride in the simple beauty of language. The ability to spell is rapidly going by the wayside as people rely on the bane of a writer’s existence – spell check. And grammar? Forget it – computer versions are often wrong and modern writers don’t have the background knowledge to know when to trust their electronic overlord and when to resist!

Forget people enjoying the beauty of the English language and the way it can be used to draw out emotions from plain text — the ability to string together a sequence of words into a coherent sentence is an ability that’s going the way of the dinosaur.

I’m not a stuffy grammarian – I will end my sentences with propositions from time to time if the text reads better. I appreciate the need for language to modify and change to meet the needs of the modern and future generations. However, there are lines that need to be drawn in the sand – and spelling is where that line is, uhm, spelled out.

If you dumb down your language because it’s too tough for those who speak it to write, then you are, in effect, lowering the expectations of your populace. Instead of challenging them to be better and raise the bar, you end up lowering the bar so that everyone can feel good about themselves – and it doesn’t matter if an ant couldn’t limbo under the threshold that you’ve set.

And why are we so liberal with language? Why is dumbing down the very way we express ourselves acceptable, when no one would ever consider applying a “close-enough” standard to science, medicine, or technology? The world around us continues to grow and require more knowledge, ability, and skills – so why shouldn’t the world within us, and our ability to express ourselves, follow the same path?

This is not a new battle. Mark Twain and Benjamin Franklin were early advocates of simpler spelling, and they were followed by Andrew Carnegie and Theodore Roosevelt. Others continue to champion the cause of simpler spelling and perhaps now they’ve found a generation who will find their crusade more palatable.

After all, in a world where BRB, LOL, and Gr8 are commonplace terms, why should they not be included in the mainstream text? Are their inclusions any more offensive than the modern-day executive whose inter-office memo is riddled with errors? Or are they any more grating than the person who misappropriates figures of speech during a conversation?

No, but a society that limits itself through speech limits its ability to grow. Like Quebecoisjoual, this dumbed-down language restricts the capacity of speech to explore new territories – only existing in its own familiar sphere. By refusing to challenge ourselves to be better through speech, we retard our ability to improve through thought. We eliminate a tie to our history, as when the etymology of words gets broken, so too does their connection to our past.

A simplified language would only exist in the here and now, whereas a fully formed and constantly adapting language not only retains its connection to the past, but it also offers the promise of continued refinement in the future.

After all, like Elvis sang, “they’re only words, but words are all I have to steal your heart away.”

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Buying into Concept of Freedom of Choice

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

The Sunday Shopping debate in Nova Scotia is so 15 years ago – well, at least that’s the case for those of us in Ontario. Unfortunately, after all this time, it still appears that people are unwilling to buy into the concept of freedom of choice.

Don’t let anybody fool you – the Sunday Shopping debate has nothing to do with promoting the family or mandating a day of rest for harried workers. It’s all about religion. Plain and simple.

More specifically, it’s about one particular religion, Christianity, attempting to assert control over something that it should truly have no control over. After all, we’re only discussing the evils of shopping on the Christian Sabbath, not the Jewish Shabbat now, aren’t we?

Allegedly Canada is a secular society – not that the Church would mind if that wasn’t the case. And if we are secular by nature, then religious holidays and observances have no place in the defining of how and when we live our lives or buy milk.

But beyond what side of the debate you are on in terms of religion, the fact that there is even a debate at all obscures the fact that this is just another example of religion refusing to allow people to exercise the ability to choose to lead the life they want. Instead the Church is attempting to squeeze its fist tighter around a rapidly dispersing flock – and the problem with that mentality is that the more one squeezes, the more likely people will slip through the fingers.

The Church, in its zeal to mandate that everyone – regardless of whether or not they’re Christian – follows its rules are happily advocating restricting people’s rights to personal choice. And, in fighting so hard against a world that it can’t abide, the Church is missing the most effective tactic in the fight against perceived evil.

Personal choice.

The very thing they’re trying to restrict is the one thing that could be its salvation. But by fighting so hard against the concept, not only is the Church fighting a battle it can’t win – it’s running the risk of alienating not just those who are spiritually curious, but also those already within the congregations of Canada.

Religious or not, we all have the ability to chose. And, when it comes to deciding what’s good and bad for the masses, none of us are ever going to be right. However, when it comes to choosing what’s good and bad for ourselves… well, then there’s no better authority than Numero Uno!

Find a TV show offensive? Turn it off. Believe that pornography is evil? Don’t rent it and stay out of the sex shops. You find that classic literature is crossing the line of decency? Put down the match and leave the book on the shelf.

Simply put, there is no better filter in the world than personal choice. Nobody is forcing anyone else to do anything they don’t want. There is no Atheist Army rousing you out of your sleep to drag you to Wal-Mart. Nor is there anyone forcing you to keep your eyes glued to Fear Factor over a bowl of Spaghetti-Os.

We can make our own choices. If you think that your God doesn’t want you to go shopping on Sundays, then by all means stay at home, go to Church, or do anything else. But, as you’re enjoying the freedom to choose how you live your life, ensure that you allow others to engage in that same freedom.

For many people, Sunday shopping is a necessity considering the hectic lives many of us lead. With school, work, family time in the evenings, activities, and the like, often Sunday is the best day to go shopping. And for others, working on Sunday is a blessing – no pun intended. Those on fixed incomes, students, and other casual labourers all benefit from the fact that the wheels of commerce continue to spin on Sundays.

As well, there’s really no one-size-fits-all approach to life, now, is there? Not everyone works 9-5 between Monday and Friday. There are people that work shifts, those with schedule challenges, those with a myriad host of other reasons as to why a “traditional” lifestyle does not apply.

Should these people, for whom a day of rest on Sunday doesn’t work, be subjected to one based upon one group’s religious beliefs?

The Nova Scotia Sunday Shopping debate just proves again that nobody should be forced to do anything – anything except being forced to respect each other’s right to live the life we want, free of harassment, judgment, and scorn.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

NHL’s Blind Stupidity

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

It’s true that vision decreases as we age, but the NHL’s myopic view of the issue with eye protection is bordering on blind stupidity.

Hockey may be a game, but it’s also big business. As such, the key to having a successful product built on quality and entertainment, owners must look at protecting the league’s assets. In business parlance, low-hanging fruit is a readily identifiable task that can be accomplished when it becomes apparent, without having to go through all the planning, development, and execution.

And really, there’s nothing more readily identifiable in the NHL than the need to protect the game’s assets – its players. Unfortunately, the only thing preventing them from donning visors is their issues with their own low-hanging fruit.

On June 28 th the American Hockey League mandated the use of visors for all its players, starting with the upcoming season. And unlike the NHL when it decided in 1979 to make helmets mandatory, there will be no grandfathering clause. Everyone, from the wet-behind-the-ears newbie to the grizzled veteran will have to affix a visor to their helmet if they want to take the ice.

Sounds simple, right? In fact, it seems that everyone in organized hockey can see the value of facial protection – everyone except for the ones at the top of the pile. Everyone except those with the most to lose.

An NHLer’s career is notoriously short. So while many people are willing to put forth arguments as to why the players should earn as much as possible during that time, why are there not the same arguments for ensuring that the players are available to earn as much as possible, for as long as possible.

With the AHL’s decision to mandate the use of eye protection, that means that players will now progress through their entire career without being able to choose whether they use facial protection. Minor hockey and most colleges require full cages. Junior and now some professional ranks have gone the way of visors. Yet the NHL lags behind, risking the loss of marquee talent with each and every errant stick or wayward puck.

Sure, injuries are a part of sport. But, in large part, eye injuries can be prevented by the proper use of equipment. Obviously, you can still have your Saku Koivu situation, wherein a stick comes up and under the visor in a freak progression of circumstances. However, the proper use of visors would minimize that risk – and give an owner a better chance to maximize on their investment.

One key word in this is “proper.” Visors must not just be worn, but worn in the right way. For years, junior hockey was peppered with players who treated the plastic visor more as a sun roof for their hair than protection for their eyes. The visor was on, but the helmet was tilted so far back that it provided no protection.

The biggest impediment to the adopting of visors in the NHL is the macho culture that permeates some dressing rooms. For some players, it’s a proof of their manhood that they can play an absurdly fast game, with little to no protection on the eyes. It seems their aforementioned low-hanging fruit are threatened by having to wear visors.

The knuckleheads at the sports bar and on Coach’s Corner don’t help matters either. Good Canadian boys, it appears, should be man enough to risk their long-term vision and future earning potential because wearing a visor is sissy.

So here’s a solution to the whole problem. If the NHL doesn’t have the cojones to make visors mandatory and the National Hockey League Players Association continues to value machismo over vision, then the rules should be rewritten. Visors can continue to be mandatory – but those who forgo eye protection must also forgo wearing a jock.

If they’re not going to think with the big head, then we’ll make them think with the one players appear to value more. And, going back to business-speak, if you don’t think those low-hanging fruit issues will be dealt with immediately, then you don’t know how much these players value their “core competencies.”

All jokes aside, hockey is both a business and a game. From a business perspective, it makes sense to protect your investments. That’s why goggles and other protective equipment are mandatory in a number of fields – and hockey should be no different.

From a human perspective, these players need to understand that they are playing a game – they’re being well-paid, but still playing a game. And no game is worth losing your vision, especially not when a solution is in plain view.

Accidents will continue to happen, but we can do much to minimize the potential for their occurrence. Anyone who doesn’t see that is just blindly stupid.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved