Why are members of the foreign media wondering why a host country would like to dominate their games? Did China not want to dominate theirs and was anyone surprised. Was the USA afraid to dominate in Salt Lake? Own the Podium- are those words too tough to digest?
Let me as a Canadian say them one more time. Own the podium. A writer at the Times of London writes, “their highly unpleasant Own the Podium program...has alienated the world they are supposed to play host to. Getting ugly about it is neither necessary nor appropriate.” Own the podium…Ugly?
The Chinese owned the Figure Skating pairs competition last night. Taking Gold and Bronze and it was a beautiful thing - Not because I have a thing for China. They owned the competition not because they marched into Vancouver and Shot Canada full of holes. They didn't fire rocket launchers. They didn't rape the women. Some people are upset that our Canadian women beat Slovakia 18 - 0...running up the score they say? Arrogant they say…Ugly some say. Does anyone with rudimentary understanding of hockey think 18 - 0 was really running up the score based on what went down in the first twenty minutes of play. Canada could have won that game 30 - 0...And Bilodeau's performance...Our first Gold medal as a host country Sunday night when Canada's heart skipped a mogul. The Aussies say that their duded was ripped off by the Judges who were swayed by the crowd. The judges weren't swayed by a crowd. The judges saw what they saw and judged it. The country was seduced by excellence, the only kind of athletic seduction that is worth experiencing. You know it when you feel it. And you know Sour grapes when you hear it.
***
For several weeks I have been reminding the doubters that when the real poll question is put to the public the answer will embarrass Liberals. The real poll question is not which party are you leaning toward with no election campaign on. The real question has always been and will always be, "Who do you want in the cockpit? Who do you trust to fly the Plane called Canada?"
And now to the question Nik Nanos, Canada's most reliable pollster, put to the public:
As you may know, Michael Ignatieff is the leader of the federal Liberal Party, Stephen Harper is the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, Jack Layton is the leader of the federal NDP, Gilles Duceppe is leader of the Bloc Quebecois and Elizabeth May is the leader of the federal Green Party. Of the following individuals, who do you think would make the best Prime Minister?
In the category of best PM
The Best PM
Stephen Harper: 32.0%
Jack Layton: 18.1%
Michael Ignatieff: 16.1%
Elizabeth May: 6.9%
Leadership Index Questions
: As you may know, [Rotate] Michael Ignatieff is the leader of the federal Liberal Party, Stephen Harper is the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, Jack Layton is the leader of the federal NDP, Elizabeth May is the leader of the federal Green Party. Which of the federal leaders would you best describe as:
The most trustworthy leader
Stephen Harper: 25.0%
Jack Layton: 20.8%
Michael Ignatieff: 10.4% (-0.5)
Elizabeth May: 9.8% (+5.2)
The most competent leader
Stephen Harper: 33.6%
Jack Layton: 14.2%
Michael Ignatieff: 13.9%
Elizabeth May: 3.4%
So what do we have here?
A couple of things:
a) A reliable metric on who Canadians see as the most reasonable choice to occupy the most powerful office in the land. And it's not close. It's not a horse race. It's not a jump ball. It's not a tighter than tight eye of the needle that needs to be threaded. This is only horse race if you call a horse race one between a 3-year-old Stallion Thoroughbred Triple Crown Threat versus a broken down Chuckwagon animal who threatens nothing more than a bag of carrots.
Now to Henry Aubin Montreal Gazette who writes if Arrogant Nationalism were an Olympic Sport, Canada would win gold.
The Olympics, writes Henry, are supposed to be uplifting. So far, the Vancouver Olympics are anything but.
The problem starts at the very top: the Own the Podium initiative, that federally sponsored program that aims to overcompensate for the supposed ignominy of Canada's modest collection of medals at past Olympics by making this country the No. 1 nation in terms of medals won. That's right, No. 1. Arrogance, not the Olympic spirit, is what inspires Own the Podium.
Yes, let's not forget the Olympic spirit. It's that corny but terrific idea that, in the words of Pierre de Coubertin, "The important thing is not to win but to take part." That idea has become unfashionable in recent decades, but the organizers of these Games have consigned it to oblivion.
The symptoms of the new approach surfaced well before the start of these Games. As early as last September the New York Times reported that Canadian officials were going all out to exploit their home-field advantage for these Games. They were giving U.S. athletes, unlike their Canadian counterparts, minimal opportunities to become familiar with the luge track, speedskating oval and ski hill - the peculiarities of which can greatly affect performance. The head of USA Luge understandably complained of "poor sportsmanship."
Certainly little sportsmanship was on display Sunday when the Canadian women's hockey team piled it on 18-0 against Slovakia. It was embarrassing. Pure humiliation. Never mind that the Olympic Charter says the Games should set a "good example" for upcoming generations.
Arrogance implies insensitivity, and you could see a lot of that at the opening ceremony. Although the organizers bent over backward to give an appropriate place to Canada's native people, their blind spot in regard to French Canada was staggeringly disrespectful. You'd almost think a sovereignist mole had staged the whole ceremony to stoke Quebec's resentment.
But it's not just the organizers' hubris that's dispiriting. It's also their clumsiness in staging the opening ceremony.
To be sure, the soirée included some gems - the snowboarder who sailed through the middle "O" of the Olympics' five-ring logo, the orcas, the giant illuminated bear, and k.d. lang's Hallelujah. The dedication of the entire soirée to the memory of the Georgian luger was also right.
But the show as a whole lasted way too long - the Mountie flag-carriers' slow-mo march, the youth floating over wheat fields, skiers and snowboarders yo-yoing up and down a mountain. Pure tedium. Almost every act could have been shortened by a third or half.
And then there was the lighting of the Olympic cauldron. Let's not dwell on the failure of an ice pole to rise: We all know about technology's whims. But it's the organizer's considered choice of Wayne Gretzky as the final torch-bearer that's more disappointing. He hasn't been a resident of Canada for decades. And, if his expression was any indication, he didn't seem too honoured.
Lighting the cauldron is a symbolic role. It should belong to a person with some relationship to the Olympic movement's core of amateurism, much compromised though it is. Gretzky, for all his athletic prowess, is not remotely connected to those roots. He personifies professional sport and - as the head of his own clothing line and huckster for soft drinks, beer, fast food, watches, cars and oil - he also incarnates the commercialism that surrounds sport. When the organizers of the Vancouver Games chose Gretzky, they in effect gave an official stamp of approval to this commercialism as it affects the Olympics.
Most of the things I've criticized - nationalistic swagger, use of the home-field advantage, poor sportsmanship, insensitivity and an embrace of commercialism - have occurred in earlier Olympics. But if there were medals for taking these traits to new levels, Vancouver would truly own the podium.
