Looking Back to See Progress

“The success of every woman should be the inspiration to another.”

– Serena Williams

Thirty-five years ago this month, I began working at Concordia University in Montreal, my alma mater. I had graduated three years earlier, certified as both an athletic therapist and a strength and conditioning coach.

The first two years after graduation I worked in a private clinic, until the clinic could no longer afford to keep me on. I took a job managing a sports store, and to be honest, I was not far from giving up on my career and trying something else entirely.

One day, the man I had interned under at Concordia Athletics walked into the store. He mentioned he was looking to hire an assistant. As I listened to him talk through who he was considering, it suddenly dawned on me that the role could be reshaped—someone who could serve both as a therapist and a strength and conditioning coach. He loved the idea. The only problem: he barely had two pennies to rub together to make it happen.

We figured out a way to get me paid, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Today, those humble beginnings came flooding back as I sat down to watch the Women’s Rugby World Cup final between Canada and England. Here I was, watching an international women’s sporting event in front of 82,000 fans in England, broadcast globally on TSN. Incredible.

When I started at Concordia, Canadian universities were just beginning to push for gender equity in sports. But women’s teams were still drastically underfunded, and there was no clear blueprint for supporting them.

Most of the women athletes had never trained in a weight room, hardly trained in the off-season, and in many cases were still learning the games they were playing at the university level. Soccer, basketball, and volleyball had some established culture, but preparation models were thin at best. Women’s rugby and hockey were truly in their infancy.

I was fortunate to work with some remarkable pioneers. I’ll never forget watching future Hockey Hall of Famer Cammie Granato and her teammate Karyn Bye suit up at Concordia. You could see the future of women’s hockey in them.

Over my eight years at Concordia, I worked to instill off-season and in-season preparation habits across women’s teams—strength training, conditioning, standards, and expectations. At first there was stigma around women lifting weights, but soon enough some became hooked on the empowerment of building strength and seeing it show up in their play.

Slowly but surely, things began to change. The games changed as the athletes changed.

Still, it was bittersweet. When players’ university careers ended, so too did their athletic ones. There was no next step. No professional leagues. A career in sport beyond school was little more than a dream.

I remember endless debates with colleagues, athletes, and coaches about the future of women’s pro sport. The discussions were always a mix of frustration, hope, and disbelief. At the time, the games simply weren’t seen as entertaining enough. Who would pay to watch? It felt impossible.

When I left Concordia in 1998, I stepped back from women’s sport directly, but I watched quietly as it grew. National programs expanded, women’s sport began to excel, and I was fortunate to work with some extraordinary female Olympians. I saw how hard they worked, often for little to no financial reward, purely out of love for their sport.

Over the years I witnessed women push for equity, claw for legitimacy, demand financial support, and chip away at recognition. I watched the WNBA launch in 1996, tennis grow into a financial powerhouse, and other sports begin to claim space.

Athletes became more physical, more powerful, more skilled. Their games became undeniably entertaining. Slowly but surely, people—and money—started to pay attention. Professional leagues started to form. Dreams became possible.

And so today, here I was—wearing Rugby Canada gear, watching our women’s national team, including some Concordia athletes, compete on the world stage. Playing in a sold-out (that’s tickets with a price tag!) professional rugby stadium. 

Broadcast around the world.

Tears welled up in my eyes as I sang O Canada. Because 35 years ago, this was nothing more than a dream.

You did it, ladies.

The Courage to Choose Reconciliation

“You will achieve more in this world through acts of mercy than you will through acts of retribution.”

– Nelson Mandela

Acts of retribution and payback feel more common than ever. Of course, conflict and revenge have been part of society for millennia, but today they seem to build up day by day.

The internet and our global interconnectedness put every act of violence or retaliation under a spotlight. What might once have been a local quarrel is now broadcast worldwide. The act itself becomes the focus, and the attention it draws only reinforces our human tendency to chase more of it.

We’ve come to see revenge, confrontation, and escalation as ways to build influence. And influence, in our current world, is treated as a golden commodity—perhaps even more alluring than gold itself ever was.

There is a powerful scene in the movie Invictus, where a meeting is held to decide whether to abolish the Springboks—South Africa’s national rugby team. For decades, the Springboks had symbolized apartheid and white Afrikaner nationalism.

After Nelson Mandela’s election, many in the African National Congress wanted to erase that symbol. They proposed stripping the Springbok name, colors, and emblem, replacing them with something new for the new South Africa. To them, the Springbok represented oppression and exclusion.

The film dramatizes Mandela calling a special meeting of the South African Sports Committee. He arrives late, lets emotions build, and then addresses the room:

“Brothers, sisters, comrades: I am here because I believe you have made a decision with insufficient information and foresight… Our enemy is no longer the Afrikaner. They are our fellow South Africans, our partners in democracy. And they treasure Springbok rugby. If we take that away, we lose them. We prove that we are what they feared we would be. We have to be better than that. We have to surprise them with compassion, with restraint, and generosity… But this is no time to celebrate petty revenge.”

Mandela’s message was clear: even though the Springbok was a hated symbol for Black South Africans, he believed it could be transformed into a symbol of unity.
To white Afrikaners, the Springboks were a source of pride.

Abolishing them would have made whites feel attacked and excluded in the new democracy.

By choosing generosity, forgiveness, and inclusivity—even toward former oppressors—the Springboks could be reclaimed for all South Africans.

That is why Mandela insisted the Springbok name and colors remain. That choice set the stage for the 1995 Rugby World Cup, when he famously wore the Springbok jersey at the final match—a gesture that embodied reconciliation more powerfully than any speech could.

Historians note that Invictus took dramatic license in constructing the scene, but the spirit of Mandela’s leadership was exactly this: not punishing, but bringing people together; not revenge, but reconciliation; acting with generosity; building a new nation.

Mandela himself put it this way:

“We were expected to destroy one another and ourselves collectively in the worst racial conflagration. Instead, we as a people chose the path of negotiation, compromise, and peaceful settlement. Instead of hatred and revenge we chose reconciliation and nation-building.”

Mandela’s choice reminds us that leadership often means restraint. But what does that mean for us?

Too often, when we find ourselves in conflict, our instinct is to dismiss or condemn those who oppose us. We rarely pause to understand why they see the world as they do. We assume. We label. We inflame.

When we choose retribution, we don’t resolve conflict—we escalate it. We feed the fire until it becomes an inferno.

The real power lies in choosing the harder path: to hold back, to seek resolution, to reimagine the relationship, to reinvent the situation. It isn’t easy—but nothing worth doing ever is.

And while influence may seem attractive, remember that it comes with scrutiny. The fear of losing it often drives people to escalate their behavior again and again. Like any drug, its effect dulls, and the need for more intensity grows—until, inevitably, the proverbial cliff is reached.

As the old adage reminds us: Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Hear No Evil, See No Evil, Speak No Evil

“You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down.”

– Ronald Reagan

It’s interesting to watch the landscape of political discourse and the human need to categorize people into neat little boxes: right or left, woke or far right, socialist or fascist. We love to label people by their supposed beliefs without ever really knowing them. And when people do share their beliefs, what we hear is often a curated version — spun to create a story, or worse, to stir controversy.

But if we actually look at the definitions of liberalism, conservatism, and socialism, each of them at its core is built on well-intentioned ideas.

Liberalism emphasizes individual freedom, equality of opportunity, and the protection of rights. It seeks to expand civil liberties, promote tolerance, and adapt to change where progress is needed. Historically, liberalism leaned toward free markets and limited government, but modern expressions lean more toward government’s role in leveling the playing field and ensuring fairness.

Conservatism emphasizes tradition, stability, and continuity. It’s about preserving institutions, cultural norms, and moral values as anchors of social cohesion. Conservatives lean toward strong but limited government, gradual change rather than upheaval, and place weight on personal responsibility, faith, family, and community.

Socialism emphasizes collective responsibility, equality, and social welfare. At its heart is the belief that society functions best when resources are managed in a way that prioritizes fairness and universal access to essentials like healthcare, housing, and education. There are many shades — from social democracy, which balances markets with strong safety nets, to more radical forms that push for collective ownership.

👉 In short:

• Liberalism emphasizes freedom and equality of opportunity.
• Conservatism emphasizes order, stability, and tradition.
• Socialism emphasizes shared responsibility and equality of outcome.

When you step back, none of these central ideas are disturbing or outrageous. In fact, many democracies weave them together into a kind of mosaic — a counterbalance that helps prevent any one ideology from distorting itself into dogma. Over time, though, the meanings shift and bend. Lincoln’s Republican party, for instance, was the party of emancipation — a shock to those of us who grew up associating Republicans with modern conservatism. In Canada, the emergence of the New Democratic Party under Tommy Douglas reflected a push for greater social support within a system already balancing liberal and conservative influences.

The danger isn’t in the beliefs themselves, but in what happens when the pursuit of power twists them. When ideas become tools to control, constrain, or silence others, their original intent — to guide us toward a better society — is lost.

And this is where we seem to find ourselves more and more today. Less direct conversation. Less respectful debate. More rage-baiting, more insult.

So maybe the question we should be asking is: how do we get back to the good that lives at the center of each of these systems? How do we remember that, stripped down, they all begin with a fundamental belief in doing right by our fellow human beings?

Two eyes, two ears, one mouth. Maybe it’s time we used them in proportion.

America at a Crossroads

“I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed.”

– Dr. Martin Luther King Junior

This week marks 24 years since 9/11.

I had stood in front of the Twin Towers just weeks before they were reduced to rubble by terrorists in one of the most devastating moments in modern history. Shortly thereafter, I returned to my homeland for work and watched that terrible event unfold on television in shock and disbelief.

This infamous anniversary, and the current political discourse, has made me reflect on what I’ve witnessed in America since then.

As a Canadian, I’ve watched the political landscape of my neighbors to the south with great interest throughout my life. Partly because of the three years I spent working in New York City, and partly because the U.S. has always been the “big brother” to the south. But mostly because Canada, like so many nations, has been deeply influenced by American media, culture, and politics for as long as our countries have coexisted.

Both nations were built on the foundation of Indigenous cultures long before Europeans ever arrived. The continent later shaped by European powers — Spain, England, France — even the Vikings long before that. Yet each country developed its own fabric of progress through wars, migrations, political debate, belief systems, and the constraints of geography and climate.

A Slow Erosion

Over the years, I’ve watched with concern the slow, insidious deterioration of what America once stood for. These days, regardless of whether you lean left or right, the uncomfortable truth is that those in leadership on both sides have been corrupted so deeply that they no longer truly represent their people.

Money and power dominate both parties. Overtly or covertly, the intent is self-preservation and advancement, not service to the nation. The system is rigged whichever way you turn, and it will take an extraordinary movement of leaders — to get the ship sailing in the right direction again.

The Founding Vision

Since its inception, the United States has stood — at least in principle — for opportunity and democracy: equal representation of citizens under the law. That was the stated intent of those who penned the Constitution.

Flawed as they were — men who denied equality to women and permitted slavery — they nonetheless sought to create something radically new. They imagined a structure where no single ruler held ultimate authority, where power was balanced, and where citizens had a say.

The Constitution laid out three branches of government:

• Executive: Led by the President and Cabinet, responsible for steering the nation’s direction.
• Legislative: A bicameral Senate and House designed to check executive power and create laws.
• Judicial: Courts tasked with ensuring justice and upholding the Constitution.

Representation was meant to be chosen by the people. Presidents elected every four years. Members of Congress elected on staggered terms. Amendments expanded rights over time, limiting executive tenure and broadening protections for citizens. 

At its essence, democracy meant that no one person or group could rule unchecked.

For generations, the world believed in that promise: the American Dream, where anyone could build a life of liberty and opportunity.

Where It Stands Today

Those in power still claim to believe in that vision. They argue over who is more democratic, who cares more for “the people,” who is best to lead the nation forward.

But if they truly believed in democracy and equality, here’s what they would be working to fix:

1. Electoral Reform
   A voting system that guarantees every citizen’s ballot counts equally and fairly. This is simply not the case today.
2. Campaign Finance Reform
   A system where regular citizens — not just the wealthy or corporate-backed — can realistically run for office. Ideas, not money, should decide elections.
3. Term Limits and Age Limits
   End the era of career politicians whose longevity is tied to corporate allegiance rather than public service. Watching Senators and Presidents serve into their late 70s and 80s while the retirement age remains 65 is, at best, irresponsible.
4. Tax Reform
   Build a fair tax system that doesn’t disproportionately favor the wealthy but ensures everyone pays their share.
5. Depoliticizing the Supreme Court
   The judiciary should not be a political prize, yet it has become exactly that.
6. Eliminating Corporate Lobbying
   Representatives should legislate with conscience, not under the thumb of lobbyists and donors. This is tied directly to campaign finance reform and would free leaders to focus on governing instead of fundraising.
7. Funding Local Police Forces
   Post–George Floyd, there was loud talk about “defunding the police.” Yet now, the National Guard and military are increasingly used to quell crime and unrest — a role meant for properly supported policing at the local level.
8. Restoring Trust in Federal Institutions
   Misuse of funds, conflicts of interest, and political weaponization have eroded faith in government. Oversight and accountability must be re-established so that citizens can once again trust the institutions essential to civil society.
9. Immigration Reform
   America was built by immigrants. Reinventing how people immigrate, establish themselves, and remain as positive contributors — while also creating legitimate means for removal when necessary — is critical to the future.
10. A Legitimate Third Party
    The two-party system has hardened into endless polarization: us vs. them. A viable third party could break the gridlock and force cooperation in the name of progress.

These reforms are not small tweaks; they are fundamental shifts that would re-establish America as a vibrant democracy and a genuine model for the world.

I don’t claim to know exactly how these changes could be achieved, or what they would ultimately look like. But I do know this: the endless finger-pointing over which administration is better or worse is mostly smoke and mirrors. In the meantime, it’s the regular citizen — the backbone of the nation — who continues to be scammed, year after year.

Back in the early 2000s, I hoped the horrific events of 9/11 might have changed the trajectory of the nation for the better. Sadly, it seems instead to have accelerated its decline.

The question now is not whether America can reclaim its founding vision — but whether it still has the will to try.

Why Selling is Really About Helping

“Great salespeople are relationship builders who provide value and help their customers win,”

– Jeffery Gitomer

A lot of people in the human performance industry dislike the idea of “selling.” It’s often frowned upon when performance professionals market their services, share their knowledge publicly, or build personal brands.

Why? 

Because when most people think of selling, they imagine persuasion, pressure, or convincing someone to buy. But according to my recent podcast guest https://www.buzzsprout.com/1017442/episodes/17756538, Keenan (Jim Keenan, as he’s formally known), one of the most outspoken voices in modern sales, real selling is something entirely different: helping.

In our conversation, he explained that the most effective salespeople don’t “push” products. Instead, they ask better questions, listen deeply, and diagnose problems. As Keenan puts it:

“Selling is about understanding where people are, why that’s not enough, and how they can get more. You’re not selling them — you’re helping them.”

That philosophy resonates well beyond business. As coaches, therapists, or performance practitioners, we’re constantly “selling” ideas. Not in a manipulative sense, but in guiding clients to believe in their ability to grow, adapt, and change. When you convince someone to buy into a training plan, a recovery strategy, or even the idea that they can get better, you’re not forcing — you’re helping them see what’s possible.

Keenan’s own life story adds credibility to this principle. Adopted in the late 1960s into a mixed-race family in Boston, he grew up navigating challenges with curiosity and resilience. He chased dreams of sports and modeling before ultimately building a career in sales and later writing the best-selling book Gap Selling. Along the way, he also raised three daughters as a single parent, with a philosophy rooted not in protection, but in teaching — allowing them to own their outcomes and grow stronger through experience.

What struck me most in our conversation is how consistently Keenan applies this lens: in sales, in leadership, and in parenting. The same mindset that built successful businesses also raised confident, capable children. His legacy, as he sees it, isn’t just measured in numbers or accolades, but in the impact he’s had on people’s lives.

For those of us in performance and health professions, there’s a valuable lesson here. Success doesn’t come from pushing our agenda or showcasing how much we know. It comes from genuinely understanding others’ needs and helping them bridge the gap between where they are and where they want to be.

That often means listening deeply, identifying the fears or roadblocks they may not articulate, and then showing them — with empathy and clarity — how you can support their growth.

We shouldn’t be averse to the word “sales.” Instead, we should reclaim it. At its core, selling is about caring enough to help. And when you adopt that mindset, you not only make a difference in someone’s performance, but in their life.