The Director’s of one of Canada’s MBA programs recently had this to say:
“Never in the history of our country have we been ahead of the United States. The United States has always been richer, more powerful, more aggressive, more dynamic, more successful, more entrepreneurial. And right now they’re going off the cliff. Their banking is a mess. Their real estate is a mess. Their tax system is a mess. The place is going bankrupt before your eyes.” He actually thinks “we have the opportunity to steal some of their business” and get American companies to relocate up here.
Think again. Capitalizing on an opportunity happens because you’re aggressive, dynamic and entrepreneurial. And THAT is the essence of Canada…not! Actually, because things are fine up here, why bother, eh? Isn’t it Canada’s low risk-tolerance and conservative banking culture that saved the country’s butt in the first place. Where exactly are these new traits going to come from to capitalize on the opportunity he sees? And besides that, it’s the height of the NHL play-offs. Business opportunity? What opportunity? Pass the chips and dip, and break open the Molsons.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Notes From The Nanny State
THAT would be Canada, at least according to Michael Steele, the Republican National Committee Chairman. At the Southern Republican Leadership Conference (is there an oxymoron buried in there by chance?), he said in his keynote, “You need to understand something here folks, we’re not in a nanny-state induced coma, like Europe and Canada.” My young teenage son, listening along with me, started up a conversation that went something like this:
“What’s that mean dad?”
“Well, a nanny state is a state that takes care of its citizens, it has things like an old-age pension for its citizens, universal healthcare, maybe generous parental leave policies, perhaps national daycare, things like that.”
“But that sounds good, why does he think it’s bad?”
“He thinks it’s bad because it means people will get lazy, and they won’t work hard because the state will take care of them, like a nanny.”
“But if that’s true, why are Americans so lazy? They live in a country that doesn’t take care of them.”
“Why do you say Americans are lazy?”
“Well, geez dad, you’ve been down there, they’re the fattest people around. You get fat when you’re lazy, right?”
And so there, you have it at last—a metric for measuring the degree of Nanny-statism. The U.S. wins by a landslide! No wonder they have that show called The Biggest Loser. France, on the other hand, deep in its nanny-state coma, has citizens known for their thinness. And how about those socialist Scandinavians—aren’t they a bunch of fatties? Wait a minute, they’re actually pretty damn fit….I could get to like this metric.
* * * * *
Parity
That’s been the big word here this past week. Parity. It means the Canadian dollar is of equal value to the U.S. greenback. “Parity” is said with a kind of pride. If the Loonie is of equal value, than the country must be as well. Another metric. Canada, in other words, is finally as good as the U.S.! Right? Aren’t we? I mean, is it okay to say we are? Is that Canadian? Okay, maybe we’re not really as good. But almost, eh?
Truth is, the northern Nanny-state is actually outperforming the U.S.in most economic measures. Take that, Michael Steele. You would think that Canada coming out of the global recession stronger than any other G8 country would also be a source of pride, and it is, but, and this is a big butt, Canada knows its economy is completely tied to the U.S. Canada would actually be better off in the long run if the U.S. were coming out the strongest. It’s why Canada, as much as it may like to see itself as better than the States, can never wish the U.S. anything other than good fortune.
* * * *
The Southern Republican Leadership Conference and Ann Coulter Revisited
Underlying the content of the remarks of those at the conference is a reminder again of the breakdown of political discourse in the U.S. Newt Gingrich described the current administration as “a perfect, unrepresentative left wing machine dedicated to a secular, socialist future.” Sarah Palin was saying the kinds of things Sarah Palin says. Give her points for consistency; then take them away for accuracy…Imagine being fed a constant diet of this stuff, as many Americans are.
Think of political rhetoric as food; given that you are what you eat, perhaps Americans need to eat something more nutritionally balanced. Eating primarily the empty calories of emotionally-charged language is no healthier than eating cheap, overly-processed foods. One is satisfied only temporarily, before one needs to return for more. The reason Canada and Canadians ought not to partake of the words of Ann Coulter and her like is not because of any issues of freedom of speech, but rather because it makes sense to pay attention to what you take in—whether its food or rhetoric. A diet of nothing but twinkies is only good for the producers of twinkies, just as consuming right-wing rhetoric only benefits the producers of that rhetoric. Junkfood is junkfood. Don’t take it in. It’s bad for your health. Eat your vegetables, said your mother. And she was right. The reasonable (and reasoned) language of civil conversation may be a diet that’s a bit bland but it’s good for all of us. Canada still has some of it; the United States, none.
Bringing in those American chefs to listen to their recipes is folly.
“What’s that mean dad?”
“Well, a nanny state is a state that takes care of its citizens, it has things like an old-age pension for its citizens, universal healthcare, maybe generous parental leave policies, perhaps national daycare, things like that.”
“But that sounds good, why does he think it’s bad?”
“He thinks it’s bad because it means people will get lazy, and they won’t work hard because the state will take care of them, like a nanny.”
“But if that’s true, why are Americans so lazy? They live in a country that doesn’t take care of them.”
“Why do you say Americans are lazy?”
“Well, geez dad, you’ve been down there, they’re the fattest people around. You get fat when you’re lazy, right?”
And so there, you have it at last—a metric for measuring the degree of Nanny-statism. The U.S. wins by a landslide! No wonder they have that show called The Biggest Loser. France, on the other hand, deep in its nanny-state coma, has citizens known for their thinness. And how about those socialist Scandinavians—aren’t they a bunch of fatties? Wait a minute, they’re actually pretty damn fit….I could get to like this metric.
* * * * *
Parity
That’s been the big word here this past week. Parity. It means the Canadian dollar is of equal value to the U.S. greenback. “Parity” is said with a kind of pride. If the Loonie is of equal value, than the country must be as well. Another metric. Canada, in other words, is finally as good as the U.S.! Right? Aren’t we? I mean, is it okay to say we are? Is that Canadian? Okay, maybe we’re not really as good. But almost, eh?
Truth is, the northern Nanny-state is actually outperforming the U.S.in most economic measures. Take that, Michael Steele. You would think that Canada coming out of the global recession stronger than any other G8 country would also be a source of pride, and it is, but, and this is a big butt, Canada knows its economy is completely tied to the U.S. Canada would actually be better off in the long run if the U.S. were coming out the strongest. It’s why Canada, as much as it may like to see itself as better than the States, can never wish the U.S. anything other than good fortune.
* * * *
The Southern Republican Leadership Conference and Ann Coulter Revisited
Underlying the content of the remarks of those at the conference is a reminder again of the breakdown of political discourse in the U.S. Newt Gingrich described the current administration as “a perfect, unrepresentative left wing machine dedicated to a secular, socialist future.” Sarah Palin was saying the kinds of things Sarah Palin says. Give her points for consistency; then take them away for accuracy…Imagine being fed a constant diet of this stuff, as many Americans are.
Think of political rhetoric as food; given that you are what you eat, perhaps Americans need to eat something more nutritionally balanced. Eating primarily the empty calories of emotionally-charged language is no healthier than eating cheap, overly-processed foods. One is satisfied only temporarily, before one needs to return for more. The reason Canada and Canadians ought not to partake of the words of Ann Coulter and her like is not because of any issues of freedom of speech, but rather because it makes sense to pay attention to what you take in—whether its food or rhetoric. A diet of nothing but twinkies is only good for the producers of twinkies, just as consuming right-wing rhetoric only benefits the producers of that rhetoric. Junkfood is junkfood. Don’t take it in. It’s bad for your health. Eat your vegetables, said your mother. And she was right. The reasonable (and reasoned) language of civil conversation may be a diet that’s a bit bland but it’s good for all of us. Canada still has some of it; the United States, none.
Bringing in those American chefs to listen to their recipes is folly.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Ann Coulter Comes to Canada
Ann Coulter, the conservative American pundit, came to Ottawa to give a speech at the University of Ottawa a few day ago. Protest ensued. The speech was cancelled. Coulter leapt on the opportunity to bash Canada, the U of Ottawa, and the poor Provost from the University who sent her a letter explaining that certain types of speech in Canada can lead to criminal charges (I’ve included the letter in full below).
The kafuffle has created a veritable potpourri of punditry here. What’s not available to talk about—Canada vs. the U.S., left vs. right, freedom of expression vs. hate crime legislation, the role of the University. Everyone is chiming in, and the mean-spirited wit of Coulter has the True North Strong and Free in her sites.
In all the noise, I’ve been wondering what’s really at stake here. What’s at the heart of the matter? Does Coulter’s politics threaten Canada in some way? Her political positions—government is evil, love your country and its Christian heritage, go after your enemies, the State isn’t your mommy—are not new here, though certainly they are not prevalent. Her ideas are, in fact, completely secondary to why she garners such attention. Coulter is not a media phenomenon because of the originality of her thinking but because of the biting style in which her thinking is delivered. Could the mere style of her discourse, rather than her ideas, threaten well-meaning Canada?
Coulter’s rhetoric is mean-spirited and personal. She has honed the art of the humorous dig that has one laugh and say ouch at the same time. For Coulter, vulnerability is opportunity. Her deepest joy is pushing buttons. The living and the dead are equal targets. Witness a recent remark, “The fact that a Republican is in the late Senator Kennedy's old seat probably must have him rolling in his grave, probably spilling his drink.” Coulter not only doesn’t seek to rein in her mean-spiritedness, it is a central aspect of her brand. Of the Provost who sent here the letter, she says he “didn’t even plan to attend my speech because Tuesday is his bikini wax night,” and that his name, Francis A. Houle, is “French for Frank A. Hole.” The put-down with a nasty bite is her stock in trade.
So what? Why should we care about the language of an American pundit? On one level, we shouldn’t; let her take her travelling road show around the country and then return to the States. On another level, to the extent one believes civil discourse is a key ingredient of a democracy, perhaps her rhetoric isn’t so innocuous after all. One need only look to the January State of the Union address, when a Congressman shouted out that the President was a liar, to know that Americans are fast losing the ability to talk reasonably to one another about issues that matter.
This decline in civic conversation has been going on for some time, though I would claim it first appeared as a significant media phenomenon during the seventies when 60 Minutes introduced its Point/Counterpoint segment, a three minute sound-bite that sought to agitate viewers emotions with ideological positions that refused to be reconciled. Those brief harangues were famously spoofed on Saturday Night Live; unfortunately, those comedy sketches look all too prescient: how much distance is there between that famous line from Saturday Night Live, “Jane, you ignorant slut,” and Coulter’s “Frank A. Hole”?
The health care debate in Washington is only the most recent example. From shouts of “baby killer” to “nigger” to calling the President a “fascist,” the exchange around the issue of healthcare left little to admire. And now the chickens have come home to roost: Americans, following the examples of their elected officials, are calling in death threats to those politicians who took a stance they didn’t like. Coulter threatens democracy because her way of engaging with ideas and people feeds a virulence that prioritizes intransigent opinion over informed dialogue. And though she might, all tongue in cheek, demurely say, “why, you mean little ole me? threaten democracy?,” she is, I think, a seed carrier of this type of discourse and those seeds gets dispersed on the winds of the media.
Coulter, of course, brushes off the charges that she is mean-spirited or promotes hate by claiming she’s merely a satirist. She no more wants to kill all the Muslims than the 18th century satirist, Jonathon Swift, in his “A Modest Proposal,” wanted to sell babies so the rich could use them as food. She might like to imagine herself as a political humourist, in the American tradition of Mark Twain or Will Rodgers, and she’s simply updated the tradition for the 21st century. The problem with such self-dismissal is that context is king, and Coulter appears on the news circuits as a commentator, not in stand-up clubs and not on the Comedy Channel. Her base, the audience she most speaks to, is tuned—in both their politics and their faith—more towards the literal, unfortunately, than the satirical. Words, after all, shape thinking, and thinking shapes actions.
At the end of the recent Olympics, Brian Williams, the host of the Games for NBC, wrote a “thank you note to Canada” in which he thanked the country “for reminding some of us we used to be a more civil society.” The belief in Canada is that it always lags five years behind the States in most everything. If so, the country doesn’t have long to strategize how to keep this crass discourse of American political life from crossing into Canada as easily as an unregistered handgun. However, I prefer to believe that, in the matter of civility, Canada is far ahead of the U.S., perhaps a good twenty years ahead, as the country was, for example, with fully integrating Gays into the military. Canada’s profound need to insure it is “not the United States” is likely its strongest protection against the further encroachment from the sad political exchanges in the U.S. Perhaps as Americans continue to become more unable to talk effectively across their differences, Canada will continue to strengthen its civil discourse, and perhaps, one day, find a way to export that vital asset to its southern neighbour.
(an article providing a relatively brief overview as to how the U.S. electorate became so unable to talk with one another can be found here: http://www.opendemocracy.net/godfrey-hodgson/great-american-refusal)
Below is the Letter from the Provost at the University of Ottawa:
Dear Ms. Coulter,
I understand that you have been invited by University of Ottawa Campus Conservatives to speak at the University of Ottawa this coming Tuesday. We are, of course, always delighted to welcome speakers on our campus and hope that they will contribute positively to the meaningful exchange of ideas that is the hallmark of a great university campus. We have a great respect for freedom of expression in Canada, as well as on our campus, and view it as a fundamental freedom, as recognized by our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I would, however, like to inform you, or perhaps remind you, that our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or "free speech") in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here.
You will realize that Canadian law puts reasonable limits on the freedom of expression. For example, promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges. Outside of the criminal realm, Canadian defamation laws also limit freedom of expression and may differ somewhat from those to which you are accustomed. I therefore ask you, while you are a guest on our campus, to weigh your words with respect and civility in mind.
There is a strong tradition in Canada, including at this university, of restraint, respect and consideration in expressing even provocative and controversial opinions and urge you to respect that Canadian tradition while on our campus. Hopefully, you will understand and agree that what may, at first glance, seem like unnecessary restrictions to freedom of expression do, in fact, lead not only to a more civilized discussion, but to a more meaningful, reasoned and intelligent one as well.
I hope you will enjoy your stay in our beautiful country, city and campus.
Sincerely,
Francois Houle,
Vice-President Academic and Provost, University of Ottawa
The kafuffle has created a veritable potpourri of punditry here. What’s not available to talk about—Canada vs. the U.S., left vs. right, freedom of expression vs. hate crime legislation, the role of the University. Everyone is chiming in, and the mean-spirited wit of Coulter has the True North Strong and Free in her sites.
In all the noise, I’ve been wondering what’s really at stake here. What’s at the heart of the matter? Does Coulter’s politics threaten Canada in some way? Her political positions—government is evil, love your country and its Christian heritage, go after your enemies, the State isn’t your mommy—are not new here, though certainly they are not prevalent. Her ideas are, in fact, completely secondary to why she garners such attention. Coulter is not a media phenomenon because of the originality of her thinking but because of the biting style in which her thinking is delivered. Could the mere style of her discourse, rather than her ideas, threaten well-meaning Canada?
Coulter’s rhetoric is mean-spirited and personal. She has honed the art of the humorous dig that has one laugh and say ouch at the same time. For Coulter, vulnerability is opportunity. Her deepest joy is pushing buttons. The living and the dead are equal targets. Witness a recent remark, “The fact that a Republican is in the late Senator Kennedy's old seat probably must have him rolling in his grave, probably spilling his drink.” Coulter not only doesn’t seek to rein in her mean-spiritedness, it is a central aspect of her brand. Of the Provost who sent here the letter, she says he “didn’t even plan to attend my speech because Tuesday is his bikini wax night,” and that his name, Francis A. Houle, is “French for Frank A. Hole.” The put-down with a nasty bite is her stock in trade.
So what? Why should we care about the language of an American pundit? On one level, we shouldn’t; let her take her travelling road show around the country and then return to the States. On another level, to the extent one believes civil discourse is a key ingredient of a democracy, perhaps her rhetoric isn’t so innocuous after all. One need only look to the January State of the Union address, when a Congressman shouted out that the President was a liar, to know that Americans are fast losing the ability to talk reasonably to one another about issues that matter.
This decline in civic conversation has been going on for some time, though I would claim it first appeared as a significant media phenomenon during the seventies when 60 Minutes introduced its Point/Counterpoint segment, a three minute sound-bite that sought to agitate viewers emotions with ideological positions that refused to be reconciled. Those brief harangues were famously spoofed on Saturday Night Live; unfortunately, those comedy sketches look all too prescient: how much distance is there between that famous line from Saturday Night Live, “Jane, you ignorant slut,” and Coulter’s “Frank A. Hole”?
The health care debate in Washington is only the most recent example. From shouts of “baby killer” to “nigger” to calling the President a “fascist,” the exchange around the issue of healthcare left little to admire. And now the chickens have come home to roost: Americans, following the examples of their elected officials, are calling in death threats to those politicians who took a stance they didn’t like. Coulter threatens democracy because her way of engaging with ideas and people feeds a virulence that prioritizes intransigent opinion over informed dialogue. And though she might, all tongue in cheek, demurely say, “why, you mean little ole me? threaten democracy?,” she is, I think, a seed carrier of this type of discourse and those seeds gets dispersed on the winds of the media.
Coulter, of course, brushes off the charges that she is mean-spirited or promotes hate by claiming she’s merely a satirist. She no more wants to kill all the Muslims than the 18th century satirist, Jonathon Swift, in his “A Modest Proposal,” wanted to sell babies so the rich could use them as food. She might like to imagine herself as a political humourist, in the American tradition of Mark Twain or Will Rodgers, and she’s simply updated the tradition for the 21st century. The problem with such self-dismissal is that context is king, and Coulter appears on the news circuits as a commentator, not in stand-up clubs and not on the Comedy Channel. Her base, the audience she most speaks to, is tuned—in both their politics and their faith—more towards the literal, unfortunately, than the satirical. Words, after all, shape thinking, and thinking shapes actions.
At the end of the recent Olympics, Brian Williams, the host of the Games for NBC, wrote a “thank you note to Canada” in which he thanked the country “for reminding some of us we used to be a more civil society.” The belief in Canada is that it always lags five years behind the States in most everything. If so, the country doesn’t have long to strategize how to keep this crass discourse of American political life from crossing into Canada as easily as an unregistered handgun. However, I prefer to believe that, in the matter of civility, Canada is far ahead of the U.S., perhaps a good twenty years ahead, as the country was, for example, with fully integrating Gays into the military. Canada’s profound need to insure it is “not the United States” is likely its strongest protection against the further encroachment from the sad political exchanges in the U.S. Perhaps as Americans continue to become more unable to talk effectively across their differences, Canada will continue to strengthen its civil discourse, and perhaps, one day, find a way to export that vital asset to its southern neighbour.
(an article providing a relatively brief overview as to how the U.S. electorate became so unable to talk with one another can be found here: http://www.opendemocracy.net/godfrey-hodgson/great-american-refusal)
Below is the Letter from the Provost at the University of Ottawa:
Dear Ms. Coulter,
I understand that you have been invited by University of Ottawa Campus Conservatives to speak at the University of Ottawa this coming Tuesday. We are, of course, always delighted to welcome speakers on our campus and hope that they will contribute positively to the meaningful exchange of ideas that is the hallmark of a great university campus. We have a great respect for freedom of expression in Canada, as well as on our campus, and view it as a fundamental freedom, as recognized by our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I would, however, like to inform you, or perhaps remind you, that our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or "free speech") in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here.
You will realize that Canadian law puts reasonable limits on the freedom of expression. For example, promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges. Outside of the criminal realm, Canadian defamation laws also limit freedom of expression and may differ somewhat from those to which you are accustomed. I therefore ask you, while you are a guest on our campus, to weigh your words with respect and civility in mind.
There is a strong tradition in Canada, including at this university, of restraint, respect and consideration in expressing even provocative and controversial opinions and urge you to respect that Canadian tradition while on our campus. Hopefully, you will understand and agree that what may, at first glance, seem like unnecessary restrictions to freedom of expression do, in fact, lead not only to a more civilized discussion, but to a more meaningful, reasoned and intelligent one as well.
I hope you will enjoy your stay in our beautiful country, city and campus.
Sincerely,
Francois Houle,
Vice-President Academic and Provost, University of Ottawa
Friday, March 19, 2010
Canadian (?) News
Some days I listen to the news in Canada and wonder if I’ve really tuned the radio to a Canadian station. Maybe I’m actually getting a feed from the U.S. For example, yesterday morning the lead story in Canada was about Obama appearing on Fox news to talk about health care. The 2nd story was about the tensions between the Obama administration and Israel. Finally a Canadian story appeared—the Prime Minister has promised to focus the G8 meeting in Canada on the health of women and children in the third world, yet without any money going to family planning. With that last news item, we know it can’t be a U.S. feed because U.S. news is generally about the U.S. 24/7—all U.S. all the time! So it IS Canadian news but…it’s mostly about the States.
Why’s that? Here we have the Prime Minister of Canada taking his strategy to woo women voters by instituting some policies supporting third world women and children, and then dashing his strategy on the rocks of his conservative ideology. It may not bleed, but it ought to lead, certainly over Obama appearing on Fox news.
And yet, Obama leads. Could it be because the quality of healthcare in the United States matters to Canadians? Only to the extent that it allows Canadians to differentiate themselves and feel a wee bit smug about having a system they consider more humane. Are we captivated by the wars between the right wing Fox channel and the centrist administration ? I think not. Is the Prime Minister’s third world initiative irrelevant? No.
The truth of the matter is simply that Stephen Harper cannot compete with Barack Obama any more than I can compete with Brad Pitt. Harper, even in his more compelling moments, is slightly more colorful than curd cheese. And Canada is so infatuated with Obama that even the biggest sports story yesterday focused on him. Yes, it’s hard to believe in the land of hockey-is-OUR-game, but the big sports story yesterday was Obama’s picks for the Final Four! I nearly gagged on my cereal when I heard it. Most Canadians think March Madness refers either to a series of snow storms, or a bit of unseasonably warm weather. U.S. college basketball as the main sports news in Canada! They even played the sound bite of Obama talking about his picks and being able to watch the games on Air Force One. The sportscaster sounded thoroughly enamored with the Prez.
Clearly, this counts as another “get a life, Canada” moment. Fortunately, by the end of the day, the lead story was Harper’s third world initiative. He’d pulled back from completely ruling out a focus on family planning. Harper, however briefly, had seen the light; sometimes Canada’s attraction to practical solutions and not ideology can carry the day.
Why’s that? Here we have the Prime Minister of Canada taking his strategy to woo women voters by instituting some policies supporting third world women and children, and then dashing his strategy on the rocks of his conservative ideology. It may not bleed, but it ought to lead, certainly over Obama appearing on Fox news.
And yet, Obama leads. Could it be because the quality of healthcare in the United States matters to Canadians? Only to the extent that it allows Canadians to differentiate themselves and feel a wee bit smug about having a system they consider more humane. Are we captivated by the wars between the right wing Fox channel and the centrist administration ? I think not. Is the Prime Minister’s third world initiative irrelevant? No.
The truth of the matter is simply that Stephen Harper cannot compete with Barack Obama any more than I can compete with Brad Pitt. Harper, even in his more compelling moments, is slightly more colorful than curd cheese. And Canada is so infatuated with Obama that even the biggest sports story yesterday focused on him. Yes, it’s hard to believe in the land of hockey-is-OUR-game, but the big sports story yesterday was Obama’s picks for the Final Four! I nearly gagged on my cereal when I heard it. Most Canadians think March Madness refers either to a series of snow storms, or a bit of unseasonably warm weather. U.S. college basketball as the main sports news in Canada! They even played the sound bite of Obama talking about his picks and being able to watch the games on Air Force One. The sportscaster sounded thoroughly enamored with the Prez.
Clearly, this counts as another “get a life, Canada” moment. Fortunately, by the end of the day, the lead story was Harper’s third world initiative. He’d pulled back from completely ruling out a focus on family planning. Harper, however briefly, had seen the light; sometimes Canada’s attraction to practical solutions and not ideology can carry the day.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Final Thoughts on the Olympics
As much as I may hold the Olympic movement in contempt and the International Olympic Committee in low regard, what the athletes bring to the Games has always been, and will continue to be, moving and memorable. The Games are—when we get our national ego’s out of the way--for them, first and foremost. May they each cherish their experience in Vancouver.
Canada, the political entity, desperate to do well, did well. And Canadians, who largely did not care about winning—only 8% of Canadians, according to an Angus Reid poll, considered first place their criteria for success--enjoyed all the Gold nonetheless. Vancouver can now return to being one of the world’s loveliest cities.
Here then, in no particular order, are some closing thoughts:
--Did Gretzky have to be the torch lighter? Wasn’t that a bit too predictable? It was a choice made by central casting.
--I’m not sure which is sadder: that the opening speech by the head of Vancouver Olympic Committee contained no French, or that people reacted with a “stop your whining” attitude when it was pointed out.
--Am I wrong or did NBC never, NEVER, interview athletes from countries other the U.S.? Canada seems more ready to let Canadians know and appreciate athletes from elsewhere.
--Back in 88, when I was 100% American, I remember watching the Battle of the Brians, and thought the Canadian chap deserved the Gold. In fact, if the current criteria were applied to that skate, Brian Orser would’ve beaten Boitano. It was good to see Orser finally earn one as a coach.
--Can somebody please point out to Canada’s most public idiot, Don Cherry, how beautiful a game hockey can be when goons don’t play and fighting isn’t included?
--To the Canadian athletes who didn’t “live up to expectations” and feel they let down their country, you didn’t. Canadians never bought in to the trip laid on you by the COC. Thank you for trying your best.
--To the Canadian woman athlete—I wish I could remember her name—who won Gold and didn’t feel that good about it because she knew she could have done better, you embody what it’s all about. And to the many unnamed athletes who turned in a personal best and weren’t on the podium, so do you.
Finally, let’s take a couple of weeks to decompress, to put sport into proper perspective, and begin to turn our attention to the work that matters. Canada has had a unique injection of patriotism. Wouldn’t it be grand if it could find more legal injection sites for patriotism through taking the lead on climate change perhaps, or building more social housing or caring for its elderly? They may not be games, but I’d cheer for any one of them.
Canada, the political entity, desperate to do well, did well. And Canadians, who largely did not care about winning—only 8% of Canadians, according to an Angus Reid poll, considered first place their criteria for success--enjoyed all the Gold nonetheless. Vancouver can now return to being one of the world’s loveliest cities.
Here then, in no particular order, are some closing thoughts:
--Did Gretzky have to be the torch lighter? Wasn’t that a bit too predictable? It was a choice made by central casting.
--I’m not sure which is sadder: that the opening speech by the head of Vancouver Olympic Committee contained no French, or that people reacted with a “stop your whining” attitude when it was pointed out.
--Am I wrong or did NBC never, NEVER, interview athletes from countries other the U.S.? Canada seems more ready to let Canadians know and appreciate athletes from elsewhere.
--Back in 88, when I was 100% American, I remember watching the Battle of the Brians, and thought the Canadian chap deserved the Gold. In fact, if the current criteria were applied to that skate, Brian Orser would’ve beaten Boitano. It was good to see Orser finally earn one as a coach.
--Can somebody please point out to Canada’s most public idiot, Don Cherry, how beautiful a game hockey can be when goons don’t play and fighting isn’t included?
--To the Canadian athletes who didn’t “live up to expectations” and feel they let down their country, you didn’t. Canadians never bought in to the trip laid on you by the COC. Thank you for trying your best.
--To the Canadian woman athlete—I wish I could remember her name—who won Gold and didn’t feel that good about it because she knew she could have done better, you embody what it’s all about. And to the many unnamed athletes who turned in a personal best and weren’t on the podium, so do you.
Finally, let’s take a couple of weeks to decompress, to put sport into proper perspective, and begin to turn our attention to the work that matters. Canada has had a unique injection of patriotism. Wouldn’t it be grand if it could find more legal injection sites for patriotism through taking the lead on climate change perhaps, or building more social housing or caring for its elderly? They may not be games, but I’d cheer for any one of them.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Have a nice day...Canada-U.S. Hockey
Have A Nice Day
I’m staying at an upscale hotel in Manhattan. I’ve been getting a lot of “you have a great day, sir.” I don’t consider myself a “sir,” that’s a title reserved for the Paul MaCartneys and Sean Connery’s of the British Isles, and the weather has offered little more than a cold, grey rain. Still, what strikes me in this endless delivery of have a nice day and its variations—“you have yourself a great day sir, ” “make it a good one,” “have a terrific morning, sir”—is the earnestness behind them. The tone of voice is without a hint of irony or sarcasm, the look in the eye is direct and honest. Now I know it’s possible that everyone could simply be well-trained employees of the service industry and they’re all, in fact, worthy Oscar winners for conveying the belief that they really, REALLY want you to have a nice day, when they’re actually thinking “slip on the curb and get hit by a taxi, you f..in tourist,” but I don’t think that’s the case.
No, I think there’s something quintessentially American in this offering of wishes for your day. I don’t hear such earnestness in the Canadian service industry. A day is a day, and though we don’t at all wish each other ill, we don’t go out of the way to send out wishes that you exceed your daily allotted quotient of happiness and success either. Is it possible that the Americans, on the other hand, genuinely see each day as part of pursuing the dream of success? If you're staying with us in Manhattan, you’re obviously successful or you’re going to be successful or you’re planning to be successful, and in America, where everybody thinks you make your own success, of course we want you to have a remarkable day because, as Reagan liked to think, a rising tide lifts all boats, and if your ship comes in, our boat will benefit, my boat will benefit. Have a truly fantastic day, Sir, kick butt, bring home the bacon, hit it out of the park.
Canada-U.S Hockey
I drive down to the States the day Canada is going to play the U.S in hockey. I’m thinking how interesting it will be to watch the game on U.S. tv. I turn on NBC, who owns the right to broadcast the games and…NO game. It’s not on! The single biggest event of the Olympics so far, say Canadians, doesn’t matter to the Americans. Apparently, I learn later, there are other events that draw in more of the female demographic, and NBC would rather showcase them. Poor Canada, most of America doesn’t give a rat’s ass for hockey and yet their national team is every bit as good as Canada’s.
Since the plight of their hockey team doesn’t really matter to Americans, why don’t we make a side deal (like figure-skating judges used to do as standard practice) where they agree to throw any hockey game against us. In exchange, we’ll cut them some slack when it comes to the curling competition. We can’t throw it utterly, because Canadians ACTUALLY CARE about curling, but we can spot them a few points. Is that what they’re called in curling? Points? Or do we spot them rocks? Or brooms? Here’s a few brooms America, we emptied out our closet just for you; now, can you PLEEZ let us win the hockey gold?
And if that doesn’t work, we can always ask the Prime Minister, a serious hockey fan, to call up Obama: “Hey Barack, if we commit to a couple of more years in Afghanistan....”
I’m staying at an upscale hotel in Manhattan. I’ve been getting a lot of “you have a great day, sir.” I don’t consider myself a “sir,” that’s a title reserved for the Paul MaCartneys and Sean Connery’s of the British Isles, and the weather has offered little more than a cold, grey rain. Still, what strikes me in this endless delivery of have a nice day and its variations—“you have yourself a great day sir, ” “make it a good one,” “have a terrific morning, sir”—is the earnestness behind them. The tone of voice is without a hint of irony or sarcasm, the look in the eye is direct and honest. Now I know it’s possible that everyone could simply be well-trained employees of the service industry and they’re all, in fact, worthy Oscar winners for conveying the belief that they really, REALLY want you to have a nice day, when they’re actually thinking “slip on the curb and get hit by a taxi, you f..in tourist,” but I don’t think that’s the case.
No, I think there’s something quintessentially American in this offering of wishes for your day. I don’t hear such earnestness in the Canadian service industry. A day is a day, and though we don’t at all wish each other ill, we don’t go out of the way to send out wishes that you exceed your daily allotted quotient of happiness and success either. Is it possible that the Americans, on the other hand, genuinely see each day as part of pursuing the dream of success? If you're staying with us in Manhattan, you’re obviously successful or you’re going to be successful or you’re planning to be successful, and in America, where everybody thinks you make your own success, of course we want you to have a remarkable day because, as Reagan liked to think, a rising tide lifts all boats, and if your ship comes in, our boat will benefit, my boat will benefit. Have a truly fantastic day, Sir, kick butt, bring home the bacon, hit it out of the park.
Canada-U.S Hockey
I drive down to the States the day Canada is going to play the U.S in hockey. I’m thinking how interesting it will be to watch the game on U.S. tv. I turn on NBC, who owns the right to broadcast the games and…NO game. It’s not on! The single biggest event of the Olympics so far, say Canadians, doesn’t matter to the Americans. Apparently, I learn later, there are other events that draw in more of the female demographic, and NBC would rather showcase them. Poor Canada, most of America doesn’t give a rat’s ass for hockey and yet their national team is every bit as good as Canada’s.
Since the plight of their hockey team doesn’t really matter to Americans, why don’t we make a side deal (like figure-skating judges used to do as standard practice) where they agree to throw any hockey game against us. In exchange, we’ll cut them some slack when it comes to the curling competition. We can’t throw it utterly, because Canadians ACTUALLY CARE about curling, but we can spot them a few points. Is that what they’re called in curling? Points? Or do we spot them rocks? Or brooms? Here’s a few brooms America, we emptied out our closet just for you; now, can you PLEEZ let us win the hockey gold?
And if that doesn’t work, we can always ask the Prime Minister, a serious hockey fan, to call up Obama: “Hey Barack, if we commit to a couple of more years in Afghanistan....”
Monday, February 15, 2010
The Drought Is Over!!!
What drought? You know, the one where Canada was the only country not to have won gold at its own games. Hadn’t you noticed the parched tongue of the nation? Hadn't you felt, these many years, the endless Canadian thirst that began at the Montreal Olympics and that was finally quenched when Alexandre Bilodeau won gold in Vancouver at the men’s Moguls. What? You haven’t! Shame on you.
I haven’t felt it either, but this kind of hyperbole is everywhere in the press. Canada seems to have invented a syndrome for itself, call it a flu—O3G0 (three Olympics with zero Golds)—and now it’s been cured. I don’t know anyone who actually felt the thirst or had the flu, but if you declare it loud and long enough, everyone starts thinking it must be real.
Canada is only too ready to believe reasons why it’s not worthy(see blog post of Feb. 13, 09). This "drought" was as good a reason as any to haul out so the nation could flog itself once again, but with the added bonus of having the potential to create more viewers: watch, as our national shame will be lifted right before your viewing eyes! Hallelujah…we once were lost, but now we’re found.
Canada Post, not to miss out on the occasion, is going to issue a stamp to commemorate the lifting of the burden. For the first time in its history, Canada Post is commemorating something on the day it occurred. That’s right, for the very first time in its history. Wow, that must have been one huge scarlet letter, one immense weight on the bent back of the nation. Never mind how Canada has treated its aboriginals, or the internment of the Japanese, we never earned gold at our own Olympics! Oh the shame, the despair.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful to appreciate sport for what it is, to simply admire Alexandre Bilodeau’s excellence, and leave it at that?
I haven’t felt it either, but this kind of hyperbole is everywhere in the press. Canada seems to have invented a syndrome for itself, call it a flu—O3G0 (three Olympics with zero Golds)—and now it’s been cured. I don’t know anyone who actually felt the thirst or had the flu, but if you declare it loud and long enough, everyone starts thinking it must be real.
Canada is only too ready to believe reasons why it’s not worthy(see blog post of Feb. 13, 09). This "drought" was as good a reason as any to haul out so the nation could flog itself once again, but with the added bonus of having the potential to create more viewers: watch, as our national shame will be lifted right before your viewing eyes! Hallelujah…we once were lost, but now we’re found.
Canada Post, not to miss out on the occasion, is going to issue a stamp to commemorate the lifting of the burden. For the first time in its history, Canada Post is commemorating something on the day it occurred. That’s right, for the very first time in its history. Wow, that must have been one huge scarlet letter, one immense weight on the bent back of the nation. Never mind how Canada has treated its aboriginals, or the internment of the Japanese, we never earned gold at our own Olympics! Oh the shame, the despair.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful to appreciate sport for what it is, to simply admire Alexandre Bilodeau’s excellence, and leave it at that?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
