Systemic Discrimination or Not

So yesterday I attended a NCCP course on a document called the Aboriginal Coaching Manual. The document was originally developed for aboriginals that coach aboriginal athletes, but it later broadened to include non-aboriginal coaches that coach aboriginal athletes (that's me!). Considering the large aboriginal population in Riverton I thought it would be a good course to take.

On the whole I enjoyed the course. I was the only non-aboriginal there, but my opinion was valued just as much as everyone else's. I learned some cool stuff about aboriginal culture, like the significance of the feather (which is prominent in aboriginal art and symbolism) in their teachings. Some pretty cool stuff.

I will admit, when we did the module on racism I was a little bit nervous. I considered pretty carefully when and what I would contribute to the conversation, and most of it was really good. I was a little worried it would degenerate into an "everybody against the aboriginals" discussion, but it really didn't. We talked about non-aboriginals being racist against aboriginals, yes, but we also talked about the reverse and even aboriginal-on-aboriginal racism, so I thought it was a good discussion.

Here is the one thing I opened my yap about that may have rubbed one or two people the wrong way.

We had just discussed systemic racism, loosely defined (since I don't feel like pulling the book out) as seeming neutral rules or procedures that lead to discrimination. And after that, we were talking about positive ways to deal with a situation in which a racial slur/action is used against an athlete. The final step was worded roughly as "Build up the self-esteem of the Aboriginal young person."

This was where I felt I had to voice an opinion. I argued that the statement should simply be "Build up the self-esteem of the young person", why do we need to specify Aboriginal? Is this not a mild form of systemic discrimination?

A woman in the group said to me "Because this is the Aboriginal coaching manual."

I responded to that with something like "Yes, but we can also be in situations where we coach a mix of aboriginal and non-aboriginal athletes. If we want to eliminate racism, shouldn't we remove that distinction from the process of dealing with it?"

She didn't really respond, but a guy sitting next to me said I raised a really good point. Part of the reason I spoke up was the latter part of the definition of systemic discrimination also said that sometimes it needs to be pointed out by an outside party because an organization might not even realize they are doing it.

So what do you think? Was I way off base or on the right track?

Extra Tidbit: I did have the thought during this module that competitions that only aboriginal athletes can enter might also be a form of systemic discrimination but I didn't want to push it!

World Cup Blues

I have to admit, I really wasn't interested in the recently completed World Cup. I absolutely love to play soccer, and I play a decently-sized part in the organization of soccer in the Interlake, but watching the pros do their thing didn't really interest me.

There are two reasons I was not interested in the tournament. The first is, well, Canada isn't in it. It is very rare for me to watch any type of sporting event that I have no emotional interest in. I don't usually watch a CFL game unless the Blue Bombers are one of the teams competing. I rarely watch NHL hockey unless the Pittsburgh Penguins are playing. And so on. So having no team to cheer for was kind of a downer.

Possibly the greater reason, however, is the proclivity of "diving" in professional soccer. It seems that anytime an opponent gets near, the other player hits the dirt writhing in agony. They are trying to draw a penalty against the opposing team, and it is completely lacking any kind of sportsmanship.

Athletes in other sports embellish injuries too, I have no doubt about that. But soccer has gotten beyond ridiculous; the sheer number of incidents per game is enough to really turn me off the professional game. As a coach I would never teach my players something like that and I don't want them to learn that behaviour either.

I really hope Fifa does something to crack down on this, because if they really want soccer to take root in North America, it has to be dealt with. There are already tools in place that could easily be used to combat this problem. For example, they could designate a video replay official who reviews any injury to determine whether the player was actually touched or not. It would not slow down the game because the game has already stalled because the player is rolling around the field in "agony". Pretty simple solution for a problem that even FIFA has admitted they have.

New Look for Wonder Woman

I just happened across an article on the CBC about a new costume for Wonder Woman. I have very mixed feelings on this subject.

The classic version of Wonder Woman's costume is pictured to the left. I personally feel that superhero costumes need to be somewhat functional; fighting crime in a one-piece with what must be the ultimate Wonderbra (pun intended) doesn't seem very functional to me.

At the same time though, the whole outfit really works and has become the defining look of the character. When a costume gets redesigned, especially on an iconic character like Wonder Woman, enough elements of the original look to make the character instantly recognizable must remain.


The image to the right is Wonder Woman's new look. This isn't the first time Wonder Woman has been redesigned, but looking at this new outfit, I doubt it will be the last.

I like that the top is no longer strapless; it makes a lot more sense from a functional standpoint. I also like the addition of pants.

That is all that I like about this costume.

While I like the addition of pants, I really don't like the solid black. Wonder Woman is a bright, shining superhero, the inspirational equivalent of Superman. While dark pants with almost no contrasting colours are starting to become a fad in superhero costumes (the redesigned Captain America and the Thor movie costume, for example), it is too bad this trend is hitting Wonder Woman.

Her bracelets and tiara are included in the outfit, but the tiara seems kind of small. The bracelets are just hideous; sometimes simpler is better, and this is a perfect example of why.

The original look draws heavy influence from the American flag, and this look does not, which would be a bonus except Wonder Woman has been wearing the flag for something like 60 years. It has become a part of the character, plain and simple.

Has Wonder Woman had worse outfits than this? Yes, she has. But I really hope that this look does not last for long; if I had just seen this image on its own I would not have known this was the new look for Wonder Woman. I would have thought it was a poorly-designed fan drawing.

Canadian Television

I read an article today about Alberta's Culture Minister making comments that "Canadian TV is crap".

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2010/06/16/calgary-blackett-banff-television-comments-backlash.html?ref=fh,www.mymanitoba.com

He's taking a lot of flack for it, but honestly, I can't really say that I disagree with him (before he backpedaled). When I think of good Canadian programming (excluding sports coverage, which is excellent), I have trouble thinking of a lot of candidates. The ones that come to mind are:

Corner Gas
Canada's Worst Driver/Handyman
Battle of the Blades
Dragon's Den

Honorable mentions to programs that have been out of production for a few years - Royal Canadian Air Farce, the Red Green Show, The Littlest Hobo, and old school Degrassi

I really can't think of any other Canadian programs I really enjoy watching, to be honest. I think one of our problems is Canadian programming has to feature the best Canadian for the job. Compare that to the United States, where it's not the best American for the job, it's the best person for the job, period.

I have to wonder if we cut down on the Canadian quotas (for crew, actors, etc) in our television and film industry, if that would in fact strengthen what we have.

The Deep End

Today I rode my bike to work.

Not the biggest accomplishment in human history, but I'm pretty darn proud of this addition to my personal history. I would guesstimate that it is around 20 km from my house to Riverton. I've been telling myself that I would try it out one day, biking to work, but thought maybe I'd first to a trial run on a week-end.

I don't think I ever would have done that trial run. I would have come up with other things to do, or made excuses, and I doubt I ever would have gone.

This morning, I got up and decided the heck with it, I'm going to jump on my bike and just do it. It's not like I have any choice but to keep on going once I've started. I also have no choice but to bike home today as well, because Sarah will be working at Spruce Sands tonight and won't be able to pick me up and drive me home. And that's where the title of this post comes from.

Sometimes we have to "jump into the deep end" to push ourselves to achieve new things. We can analyze things, think through the pros and cons, but sometimes we spend too much time on analysis and not enough time on action.

And just to finish up, here is what I learned about biking to work in the country:
- Fresh gravel is the enemy of the cyclist
- My shoulder bag is not as suited to cycling as I thought it was
- Head winds suck (well, technically they blow I suppose)
- People don't always slow down when they pass you on a gravel road
- Nature is loud

- What a great way to start the morning!! (in all seriousness, no sarcasm here, it was a great way to start the morning)

Robert Munsch

It has come out in the news over the last couple of days that children's author Robert Munsch has been battling drug and alcohol addictions; he announced now that he is 4 months clean and sober.

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/books/story/2010/05/18/munsch-support.html?ref=fh,www.mymanitoba.com

The article I've linked to above talks about the positive feedback Munsch has received for coming clean on his addiction, and how most people are being very forgiving and understanding.

While I'm glad to hear he is 4 months sober, I do have to wonder though at the acceptance he is receiving. Robert Munsch is a children's entertainer, through his books and the tours he goes on. As a children's entertainer, whether he intended to be or not, he is a role model for young kids.

I have to wonder if people would be as accepting if it came out that a school teacher was battling drugs and alcohol. Would that teacher, who is also a role model to children, get such acceptance? Or would they get run out of town? Is Munsch's celebrity the reason he is receiving accolades for revealing his struggle?

Beanie Cap: Yea or Nay?

Sarah and I were talking about my beanie cap the other day. I think it is the epitome of awesome; Sarah thinks people don't laugh with me about the hat, they laugh at me.

So what do you say? Is it stupid, or awesome?

Corner Hiccups for Mayor

Corner Gas has to be one of my all-time favourite television shows. Each main character brought something special to the show, and being a rural prairie boy myself I loved seeing a show in that setting. I was sad to see the show end after it's 6th season, but happy at the same time that it went out strong (though season 5 was kind of shaky).

Now we have two new shows starring some of the Corner Gas alumni, and featuring a lot of the behind-the-camera talent from the show as well; Hiccups and Dan for Mayor. While watching commercials for these shows, I thought the characters the Corner Gas actors were portraying looked pretty familiar. But I thought I'd give the shows a chance.

After watching a few episodes of each show, I have to conclude that Hiccups has simply moved Brent and Wanda out of the gas station and into Vancouver, and Hank is running for mayor. The new shows aren't grabbing me like Corner Gas did, because the rest of the cast is missing. Other than a name and scenery change, Hiccups has 2 Corner Gas characters and Dan for Mayor has one. And unfortunately, none of them are Oscar!

Seriously, if you're a Corner Gas fan, give these shows a try, you might like them. The style of humour is very similar, so for some that may be a good thing. I just can't get past the fact that these are the same characters with different names and supporting cast.

Olympic Flag Bearer

Sarah and I were talking the other night about who should be the flag bearer for Canada at the Closing Ceremonies of the Olympics. Unlike last time where Cindy Klassen was an easy pick, it's not so clear-cut this year. Here are who I think the candidates are:

Alex Bilodeau - Won the first Gold for Canada at home. While it's a great achievement, I don't think he should be the flag bearer. Why? He won the first Gold because his event was one of the first ones scheduled. It easily could have been one of our other Gold medal winners, but they were scheduled to compete later in the games.

Kevin Martin - If Martin wins the Gold medal game in men's curling, his team will have gone undefeated through the entire Olympics. That's about 12-13 games in a row he will have won against the best in the world. That's just as, or more, dominant than Cindy Klassen was 4 years ago, but he'll only have one medal to show for it, not 5.

Tessa Virtue & Scott Moir - I think these two have a real shot at hoisting the flag, for being the first North Americans to win Gold in their sport. To me that's more of an accomplishment than Bilodeau winning the first Gold of the games for Canada.

And finally, who I think deserves to be the flag bearer...

Joannie Rochette - She won a Bronze medal under the absolutely worst condition you can imagine. Her mother died in Vancouver of a heart attack just a day or two before Rochette was set to compete. Rather than bow out, which nobody would have blamed her for (Skate Canada was ready to support her decision to drop if she chose to do so), she skated her heart out in tribute to her mother. Canada would have been proud of her even if she finished last, but winning a medal under such adversity is an amazing accomplishment.

So there you have it, my thoughts on the flag bearer. If Joannie wasn't up to handling the flag bearer job (which would be completely understandable), then I think it should be Kevin Martin. Probably a long shot, since I can't think of any time in recent memory that a curler got to carry the flag (Sandra Schmirler may have, I'm not sure on that one), but if Joannie isn't able to, I'd like to see the Old Bear get the job.

The Problem with Own The Podium

Canadian officials have finally acknowledged that the Own The Podium program, a 100+ million dollar initiative to try and win the overall medal count at the Olympics, has failed. I'm not really surprised, and the reason why is simple.

Other countries have been throwing as much or more money at the medal count a lot longer than Canada.

I've heard reports that the funding Canadian athletes have enjoyed for this Olympics will be cut. This is a typical political knee-jerk reaction to the failure of a quick fix solution. To make Olympic champions, you have to start at the ground up, not by simply throwing money at your current crop of elite athletes. And starting from the ground up takes time, as those young athletes need time to grow into tomorrow's champions.

I'm not disparaging the efforts of our current crop of Olympians; they've trained hard and done their country proud. But I'm really sad to see the cuts coming to sports funding, as it is just going to set back what Own the Podium started, making that 100+ million dollars spent a waste.

Curling Too Rowdy

There is an interesting situation that has developed with the curling competition at the Olympics. The crowds have steadily been getting louder and more boisterous as the tournament has gone on.

In most sports, this wouldn't be a problem; it would actually be encouraged. However, curling normally isn't one of them. The etiquette of curling would have the crowd quiet down when one of the players is throwing their rock. Also, since communication is so important, the cheering is making it hard for the teams to communicate while sweeping.

I'm of two minds on this topic. On the one hand, the curling purist in me says the crowds need to quiet down. During the Canada vs Great Britain game last night, the crowd broke out into a loud rendition of O Canada. Normally awesome, but Canada's second actually had to wait for the singing to subside before he could deliver his rock. It wasn't a problem because Canada had a lot of time left on the clock, but if they hadn't managed their time so well, it would have put them in a real bind (each team gets a certain amount of time to make all of their shots; Great Britain had about a minute and a half left at the end of the game). If a team runs out of time on their clock, they lose the game.

But on the other hand, isn't it great to see so many people excited about curling? While curling remains popular in Canada, a lot of clubs are seeing a reduction in participation, not an increase. Why? The old guys are moving on and there aren't as many young people getting into the sport. The crowds at the Olympics are really pumped about the game, so if that excitement leads to new curlers as a result, that would be great.

Maybe at this level the players need to be given headsets to communicate with each other and then the crowds can make as much noise as they want. It would be a real shame to lose the absolutely electric atmosphere that has overtaken the curling venue, but we also don't want that atmosphere to cost anyone a game.

Why I Hate "The Bachelor"

My wife may not want to read this post, since she's a fan of the show!

I really, really can't stand The Bachelor. Sarah likes to watch it, though she's had to miss it most weeks this season because she is curling on Monday nights. But if it's on and we're both home, I usually head down to the Mancave.

I have a real problem with the whole scenario of the Bachelor. One guy simultaneously dates 30 women, supposedly looking for true love? I'm sorry, but in the real world, a guy who dates even 2 women at the same time is a complete sleezebag, let alone 30! But because it's on television, it's okay? A guy dating 30 women isn't looking for love, he's looking for cheap thrills on a television company's dime.

It's not like the guy is just hanging out with these women to see who he clicks with and then starts dating one; I wouldn't have as big a problem with that. By the end of the season he is seriously dating several women, and they're all okay with this?

The guys that are on the show get played up as these really great, stand-up guys, but as I recall, the guy who was featured on the last season of the Bachelor proposed to one girl on the Season Finale (before the follow-up show), but then broke up with her to get engaged to one of the other girls? Yeah, he's a real stand-up guy this one. If he wasn't sure, he shouldn't have proposed, simple as that. The show is supposedly dealing with real people's feelings and emotions, therefore I don't care how dramatic an end the proposal made, it shouldn't have been done.

I get that women like to watch tv shows/movies about true love and all that, but really, if I told you I was dating 30 women at a time, would you think it romantic, or think I was the biggest jerk on the planet?

I've vote jerk.

What is the Point of Deadlines?

I read this article today in the Free Press and it got me a little fired up.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/dont-dock-students-for-missing-deadlines-ndp-81662227.html

The title of the article is "Don't dock students for missing deadlines: NDP". Basically, the article is saying the Manitoba government does not want to see students being deducted marks for turning in assignments late. The argument is the students capabilities and what they've learned isn't being reflected by their marks if they're penalized for turning in their work late.

What a bunch of hogwash.

What students are learning is they are able to turn in their work late and still get full credit. It takes away motivation to work hard and get the job done on time. It also creates more work for the teachers, and speaking as the husband of a teacher, teachers have enough work to do already without having to plan their lives around marking late assignments.

If there is a valid reason why work is late, and it is discussed between the student and the teacher, I have no problem with that. Real-world situations pop up (the death of a loved one, for example) and need to be accounted for. But being able to turn in assignments whenever a student wants is ridiculous. It's not fair to the students who did the work on time, it's not fair to the teachers who have to find time to mark it (even though they've already marked everyone else's), and it's not fair to the students who turn it in late because they aren't learning the importance of completing their work in a timely manner.

The trend in society these days seems to be one of holding everyone's hand, and I think it's a trend that is going to bite us in the rear end as the baby boomers retire. Adversity builds character, and getting a 10% deduction on your English assignment for being late teaches you to get the next one in on time.

The Power of the Coach

I was talking about coaching with the Rec Director in the Lakeshore area a little while ago, and he had a funny story for me with serious implications.

Dave is a lacrosse coach, and for those who aren't familiar with the sport, it's a rough game. While coaching an Under 12 or Under 14 team (I forget the exact age group), Dave made a comment to his players, "There's no crying in lacrosse." He said it jokingly and didn't mean it; really I could see myself saying something similar.

During the course of a practice, one of his players got hit there by the ball. The player crumpled to the ground and curled up into a ball, which is a totally natural reaction. As Dave made his way over to check on the injured player, he heard one of his teammates say "Remember, there's no crying in lacrosse!" and the player on the ground repeating "I'm not gonna cry, I'm not gonna cry." When Dave heard this, his response was "No, go ahead and cry!". All of the players were worried the injured player would be punished for crying, so they were trying to help him through it.

It's a funny story, but it really goes to show just how much influence a coach has with their players. This also applies to everyone in positions of leadership; teachers, youth leaders, even older brothers or sisters.

After hearing this story, I really try to watch what I say to the kids I coach. It actually makes me feel bad about an experience I had coaching Midget soccer when I was younger. One of my players was determined to score a goal in a game against Gimli, and somehow we got onto the running gag that if he didn't score he'd be cut (we didn't have cuts at all, by the way). He had a bunch of chances that almost went in but didn't, and occasionally when he missed I'd yell "Justin! You're cut!" It was meant totally in jest, everyone knew that, but I still feel kind of bad about it. Today Justin is actually a member of the U of M track & field team, and a competitive one at that, so I don't think I scarred him thank goodness.

Everyone is a role model to somebody, so I think we need to remember that we need to set a positive example in everything we do and think before we speak, Facebook, or text.

The Internet Doesn't Make You Anonymous

The Internet is a great communications tool. It lets you maintain easy contact with friends and family across the world. It also provides a forum for free speech on a global level; from the comfort of your living room you can broadcast your opinion for strangers everywhere to see.

I think a lot of people forget that their neighbors can read what they post too.

While the Internet can allow for anonymous posting (leading to many people expressing opinions in a crass manner they would never do in person), I think that a lot of people don't realize that what they say on the Internet can affect their regular, in-person interactions as well. Why?

Facebook and MySpace.

Before the MySpace/Facebook phenomenon took off, people guarded their identities on the Internet more. If you wanted to post your thoughts, you did so under the guise of a clever screen name. But with social networking sites becoming increasingly popular, people are now posting under their real names with pictures of themselves; there is no denying who the individual is.

However, a lot of people seem to think that same anonymity extends to Facebook even though their real name is visible, and quite frankly, it doesn't. It's no secret that a lot of people might talk differently when their parents aren't or are around. Yet I see people using language on Facebook that they wouldn't use in their parents presence, but their Mom is in their Friends list!

I admit there are times I think of posting something involving people I know that might be sensitive and just change the names to protect their identity (as the topic might be something I'd want to explore without the personal bias), but living in a small community it becomes pretty easy to figure out who is being referred to. Therefore I choose not to post about things; I wouldn't discuss the person's private life like that in person, I'm not going to do so on the Internet either.

The ability to express ourselves in an online forum is a form of power, the power of widespread expression. And as dear old Uncle Ben would say, with great power comes great responsibility. Or, if you wouldn't say it in person, don't broadcast it over the Internet.

H1N1 Shenanigans

I will admit that I'm not the most informed person in the world on the H1N1 virus...there is so much conflicting information and (from what I can tell) media over-hype going on it's hard to know what is accurate and what is sensationalism.

I've seen multiple articles stating that the H1N1 virus is actually less dangerous than the common flu. Yet there are such extraordinary measures being taken to prevent the spread of it, it makes you wonder if it's more dangerous than the common flu.

Regardless, I think some of the "measures" being taken are ridiculous. My primary example is a volleyball tournament I refereed on Saturday. I was told that the players were not to shake hands with other teams during the tournament. All of the players said it was really awkward to wish the other team a good game without shaking hands. I told them they could wave at each other if they wanted.

But what gets me is this is volleyball; even if hands aren't shaken, everybody is still touching the same disease-infested ball (my term, not one from the health muckity-mucks). Everyone is still diving around on the same dirt-covered floor. And all of the players (within their team) were constantly slapping hands with each other on the court anyway! And don't tell anyone, but when the Gimli coach gave me a break partway through the day, he used my whistle. Sshhh!

I think our society is becoming a bunch of germ-o-phobes, honestly. Our bodies need exercise, and so do our immune systems. If they never have anything to fight off, when something serious comes along we'd have no defense.

Now, this all being said, I'm not commenting on the vaccination. Some people want it, fair enough. Others don't, I think that's fair too. Everyone is entitled to their own choice in the matter. While I choose not to get it, I have no problem with the decision others have made to get it. I do think though that people not in the priority group should probably head to the back of the line though.