|
|
Post by krs1 on Jan 29, 2010 11:30:47 GMT -5
That's why the USA's neighbor to the north, long esteemed for its ever-so-polite populace, has adopted a most un-Canadian-sounding motto for these Games: "Own the Podium." "Canada has an aggressive new attitude," Stephen Colbert said on his Comedy Central TV show. "In contrast to their previous slogan: 'Pardon, would it trouble you if we won a medal or two? It would? OK. Never mind!' " www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/2010-01-29-canada-host-win_N.htm |
|
oldbones
Full Member
And so it goes ...
Posts: 244
|
Post by oldbones on Jan 29, 2010 12:08:09 GMT -5
Gee which zingers should I highlight:
"The language of an aggressive approach to victory has not been a part of our lexicon," Rudge says.
-- Ah so a change in language is all that is needed ... George Carlin would love this approach to sporting excellence ....very cost effective ... Ctrl+f and gold roads ahead I see!
"For many years, we were satisfied as a country to send people to the Games who had skill."
- Now we don't send them even if they have skill or the potential to OTP!
"We supported them at a minimum level."
- Yes as in the definition of "user pays" and "self-funded". Also "support" as in "send payment to:" and "we take cash, credit, debit ... full range of support".
"Own the Podium is a gift,"
- hurm? Santa please no!
"It's a comprehensive program, well funded,"
- comprehensive ... right ... another one of them weird usages of the term again.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Jan 29, 2010 12:35:27 GMT -5
That's why the USA's neighbor to the north, long esteemed for its ever-so-polite populace, has adopted a most un-Canadian-sounding motto for these Games: "Own the Podium." "Canada has an aggressive new attitude," Stephen Colbert said on his Comedy Central TV show. "In contrast to their previous slogan: 'Pardon, would it trouble you if we won a medal or two? It would? OK. Never mind!' " www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/2010-01-29-canada-host-win_N.htmYeah, in your face, rest of the world! And you know that stuff in the Olympic motto about the importance of taking part rather than winning? Screw that too! (At least while we're talking about the winter games, where, as a rich northern nation, we should have an overwhelming advantage, "own the podium" or not. When it comes time for the summer games again it'll be back to "what are you gonna do?"). Seriously. Why does the choice have to be between "Own the Podium" and not giving shit (or a dollar) at all? The Olympic spirit-- what's left of it-- actually offers the basis for an excellent third alternative: Help give your best athletes a serious shot, through decent funding, etc., then let them do their best, letting the chips fall where they may, and putting the focus back where it belongs-- on the greater good that global sport can accomplish. |
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Jan 29, 2010 13:23:11 GMT -5
On the same topic (OTP), columnist Jack Knox put his views forward in the Victoria Times Colonist, Sunday January 24th, page A03. He titled his column "Games turn Mr. Nice Guy into Frat Boy". It's a very good read, and I hope someone can provide the link...
|
|
|
|
Post by henry25 on Jan 29, 2010 14:38:04 GMT -5
love this article! Also, can't get enough of that aggressive attitude. I Hope we go into the games with that attitude still, know that we are the best and live up to it! Can't wait to watch!
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Jan 30, 2010 13:11:15 GMT -5
love this article! Also, can't get enough of that aggressive attitude. I Hope we go into the games with that attitude still, know that we are the best and live up to it! Can't wait to watch! Call me Canadian, but I've always preferred quiet confidence to this kind of chest-thumping. The latter always comes off more as insecurity than genuine competitive drive. When someone busts out with this so-called "aggressive" posture, I always think: Who are you really trying to convince, yourself or the fans? And, if you still need convincing, maybe your not as confident as you're letting on. Nothing says real confidence like simply playing it cool, which you can only do convincingly if you really ARE confident in your prep and abilities (think: Usain Bolt). But, in the end, this is sport: You can't do anything about the other guy, who may turn out to be just as well prepared, determined, and maybe even more talented than you. This is why we should be celebrating the spirit of competition rather than simply the winners. At this level, people who don't win, wherever they happen to be from, do not fail to win because they're losers and didn't try; they're usually simply beaten by better athletes on the day. |
|
|
|
Post by henry25 on Jan 31, 2010 1:08:36 GMT -5
love this article! Also, can't get enough of that aggressive attitude. I Hope we go into the games with that attitude still, know that we are the best and live up to it! Can't wait to watch! Call me Canadian, but I've always preferred quiet confidence to this kind of chest-thumping. The latter always comes off more as insecurity than genuine competitive drive. When someone busts out with this so-called "aggressive" posture, I always think: Who are you really trying to convince, yourself or the fans? And, if you still need convincing, maybe your not as confident as you're letting on. Nothing says real confidence like simply playing it cool, which you can only do convincingly if you really ARE confident in your prep and abilities (think: Usain Bolt). But, in the end, this is sport: You can't do anything about the other guy, who may turn out to be just as well prepared, determined, and maybe even more talented than you. This is why we should be celebrating the spirit of competition rather than simply the winners. At this level, people who don't win, wherever they happen to be from, do not fail to win because they're losers and didn't try; they're usually simply beaten by better athletes on the day. I agree with everything you're saying, and in general quiet confidence seems, to me, the very best. However, I think we need to be a little more open about what we want to do on the world stage and when you're open with goals, it adds a little incentive to try harder to achieve it. There has to be some kind of space in between the 'quiet confidence' and 'chest-thumping.'  |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Feb 14, 2010 19:23:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Feb 14, 2010 19:38:36 GMT -5
On the same topic (OTP), columnist Jack Knox put his views forward in the Victoria Times Colonist, Sunday January 24th, page A03. He titled his column "Games turn Mr. Nice Guy into Frat Boy". It's a very good read, and I hope someone can provide the link... Here it is here: www.timescolonist.com/technology/Games+turn+Nice+Canada+into+frat/2479150/story.htmlThis part of the article hits home a bit harder now: "Already we have taken a beating in the U.S. media for the petty way we restricted access to Games venues -- something labelled "un-Olympic" and "un-Canadian" in a New York Times piece, and "boorish" in the Salt Lake Tribune. Stephen Colbert called us "Canadian iceholes" for muscling Americans out of the Richmond speedskating oval. "It's kind of a dick move," a U.S. competitor told Colbert's audience." |
|
|
|
Post by francisccm on Feb 15, 2010 13:42:46 GMT -5
Call me Canadian, but I've always preferred quiet confidence to this kind of chest-thumping. The latter always comes off more as insecurity than genuine competitive drive. When someone busts out with this so-called "aggressive" posture, I always think: Who are you really trying to convince, yourself or the fans? And, if you still need convincing, maybe your not as confident as you're letting on. Nothing says real confidence like simply playing it cool, which you can only do convincingly if you really ARE confident in your prep and abilities (think: Usain Bolt). But, in the end, this is sport: You can't do anything about the other guy, who may turn out to be just as well prepared, determined, and maybe even more talented than you. This is why we should be celebrating the spirit of competition rather than simply the winners. At this level, people who don't win, wherever they happen to be from, do not fail to win because they're losers and didn't try; they're usually simply beaten by better athletes on the day. Hmm in this situation I think you are off base. The athletes can still retain quiet confidence but I don't think having a fan base that is more enthusiastic and aggressive could hurt. Just look at the cheering which has been going on, although they may not be directly related. If the Canadian people and not the athletes can really show other countries that we are serious and provide some sort of support all the better. It would just be like any fan of an NHL team pumping them up and talking the big talk before the game. The slogan and aggression doesn't necessarily change the attitude of the athletes towards their work. If something like that could change their attitude and make them a chest pumper maybe they are not a medal contender anyway. I think that not athletically, Canada as a nation and a people need to have more pride and confidence and that motto is a way of representing that. |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Feb 15, 2010 15:35:50 GMT -5
Not sure I follow you here. Isn't it the athletes who are supposed to be manifesting this new, aggressive spirit? After all, it's only the athletes, not the fans, who can "own the podium". I'm all in favour of supporting athletes, I just don't see the value added in all the bluster about "owning the podium". And you CAN have one without the other. And, besides, it's obnoxious and against the Olympic spirit. (But, a quibble when compared with participating in the invasion and armed occupation of another country while hosting the Olympics. Even the Greeks, whose whole mode of life was based on war, suspended hostilities during the original Games.)
|
|
|
|
Post by powerboy on Feb 18, 2010 8:58:55 GMT -5
Oldster I tend to agree with you. Not only do I agree with the quiet confidence approach, but I think that often the talking it up approach leads to hollow confidence.
Yesterday was another sad example of how far we have to go. Lindsay Vonn, skiing on one leg, went for it and won. Julie Mancuso had not been on a podium for 3 years, picked yesterday to do it. Our skiers and speed skaters (so far) have come up short.
Now, if this trend continues, the Own the podium will be an embarrassment. Worst of all, it will have a negative trickle down effect on our sport.
That being said, I know everyone is trying their hardest, and so it is sad and frustrating.
GO CANADA GO
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Feb 18, 2010 9:01:04 GMT -5
Lindsay Vonn, skiing on one leg Complete nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by pq on Feb 18, 2010 9:29:59 GMT -5
Lindsay Vonn, skiing on one leg Complete nonsense. Agreed! I watched her ski, and there was nothing wrong with her leg. That was bluster and bullshit to get into the heads of her opponents. She was fine all along. Pure gamesmanship. Nothing wrong with that either, if you can pull it off like she did. |
|
|
|
Post by powerboy on Feb 18, 2010 11:01:52 GMT -5
You guys may have to look up the word hyperbole in the dictionary. Of course she wsn't on one leg, but she sure as hell wasn't 100%. Botttom line, she came through as the favourite and knoing that her teammate had already put in a perfect run. That is the definition of owning the podium.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Feb 18, 2010 11:15:08 GMT -5
Oldster I tend to agree with you. Not only do I agree with the quiet confidence approach, but I think that often the talking it up approach leads to hollow confidence. Yesterday was another sad example of how far we have to go. Lindsay Vonn, skiing on one leg, went for it and won. Julie Mancuso had not been on a podium for 3 years, picked yesterday to do it. Our skiers and speed skaters (so far) have come up short. Now, if this trend continues, the Own the podium will be an embarrassment. Worst of all, it will have a negative trickle down effect on our sport. That being said, I know everyone is trying their hardest, and so it is sad and frustrating. GO CANADA GO I agree. Aside from being against the Olympic spirit (whatever is actually left of it), OTP risks extreme ridicule if Canadian Olympians fail to live up to the bluster. And the negative fallout from that could be the abandonment of decent funding for Olympic athletes as a "failed approach". I think the powers that be are poised to make this whole thing a one-time undertaking anyway, but a perceived failure by Canadian athletes to deliver could make abandoning it that much easier. BTW, I'm a little surprised no one has had a go at me for suggesting that Canada's continued participation in the "war" in Afghanistan is a more egregious violation of the Olympic spirit than OTP. I guess people aren't interested in debating this on here (understandable); or, you all thought I was referring to the Moscow games! |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Feb 18, 2010 11:16:04 GMT -5
You guys may have to look up the word hyperbole in the dictionary. Of course she wsn't on one leg, but she sure as hell wasn't 100%. Botttom line, she came through as the favourite and knoing that her teammate had already put in a perfect run. That is the definition of owning the podium. I understand what hyperbole means. I use it for effect all the time. It doesn't apply in this case. That alleged shin injury was nowhere near what she was making it out to be. It was plan B if she didn't live up to the ridiculous USAnian hype. |
|
|
|
Post by pq on Feb 18, 2010 11:16:53 GMT -5
... she sure as hell wasn't 100%. How can you say that? What basis do you have for thinking so, apart from what she said in her interviews? Not trying to be a dick - just want to know why you believe she wasn't 100%. As I wrote, I watched her run, and there was no outward indication she was anything other than 100%. That doesn't mean she was 100%, but I have a hard time believing someone can dominate a group of world class athletes if they're not, so I don't really buy what she was selling. |
|
|
|
Post by pq on Feb 18, 2010 11:26:45 GMT -5
... I'm a little surprised no one has had a go at me for suggesting that Canada's continued participation in the "war" in Afghanistan is a more egregious violation of the Olympic spirit than OTP. I can have a crack at that one if you like. Canada's foreign policy with respect to Afghanistan is entirely disconnected from the Olympics, and to attempt to link it with "Olympic spirit" is perhaps immature and idealistic, IMHO. Whether you agree with us having troops there or not (I don't), the discussion has no place within a discussion of Olympic ideals and athletic competition. IMHO. |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Feb 18, 2010 13:51:09 GMT -5
You may not know this, pq, but the "Olympic Truce" was an original feature of the Games going back to Ancient Greece, in which war was, as I say, a basic mode of life. The idea that war-fighting and Olympics-hosting represents an ethical contradiction is therefore not original to me. Cynical or not, it was the basis for the U.S.-led boycott of the Moscow games. The Soviets also wanted their "foreign policy with respect to Afghanistan" to be considered entirely disconnected with the Olympics, but the west didn't see it that way at the time. We don't even have to enter into a debate about the war in Afghanistan to note that it entails a violation of the Olympic spirit for Canada, as host of the Games. As for "idealism", the Olympic were founded on the ideal of global cosmopolitanism and peaceful cooperation. You can't even talk about the Olympics without taking about "ideals" (even if just to note how they have been violated and all but abandoned).
|
|
|
|
Post by pq on Feb 18, 2010 13:59:39 GMT -5
Fair points, oldster, but we're not really fighting a "war" in Afghanistan in the traditional sense, or at least the party we are fighting isn't a nation and has no place at the Olympics. So there would be no call to have an Olympic truce with our "enemy" in Afghanistan.
While I will grant you that your statements are valid, I maintain that Canada's foreign policy with respect to Afghanistan remains entirely disconnected from the Olympics.
Of course this is just my opinion, not a statement of fact.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Feb 18, 2010 14:31:26 GMT -5
I see where you're coming from, but, at least since Korea, there haven't really been any wars "in the traditional sense" involving Olympic hosts and core nations-- lots of military violence under other labels, though. Even when they invade and occupy other countries, aggressor nations have taken to denying that they are engaged in war "in the traditional sense"; they are always "defending their allies and interests" within a particular country against "illegitimate internal threats"; always engaged in "police actions", if you will. These are precisely the terms in which the Soviets sought to explain their invasion of Afghanistan on the eve of the 1980 games.
That the ancient Greeks-- for whom war wasn't just a means to achieve other ends, but a mode of life in itself-- could take the Games seriously enough to cease all hostilities, then you'd think modern societies, for whom war is supposed to represent break-down and failure, could manage the same. Instead, the whole issue to evaded by means of semantics and cynicism.
I'm not really arguing against you here, pq, so much as making a general point.
I guess having the Games back here in Canada has made me realize just how far they've fallen from their original ideals (to say nothing of the gross commercialism and abuse of local democracy that has become their hallmark). As with Niagara Falls, the natural beauty and wonder at the center of them still manages to shine through the crassness here and there; but, at times, just barely.
|
|
|
|
Post by pq on Feb 18, 2010 14:58:32 GMT -5
... they are always "defending their allies and interests" within a particular country against "illegitimate internal threats"; Is this what you think we're doing in Afghanistan? I ask because I'm not convinced Canada has a coherent reason for being involved, honestly. At least not one that's been clearly (and more importantly, consistently) elaborated for the voting public. And I'm interested to hear what educated and informed individual Canadians think on the topic. Sorry for the tangent, but I find this to be an interesting topic, and the core subject of the thread seems to have run its course mostly. |
|
|
|
Post by Shaftoe on Feb 18, 2010 16:56:36 GMT -5
I agree. Aside from being against the Olympic spirit (whatever is actually left of it), OTP risks extreme ridicule if Canadian Olympians fail to live up to the bluster. And the negative fallout from that could be the abandonment of decent funding for Olympic athletes as a "failed approach". I think the powers that be are poised to make this whole thing a one-time undertaking anyway, but a perceived failure by Canadian athletes to deliver could make abandoning it that much easier. Number of medals won by Canada at the 1988 Winter Olympics: 5, which represented a humiliating failure on our home turf, especially considering that none of the five were gold. Number of medals won in the five winter Olympics from 1992 - 2006, in events that were contested in 1988: 28, or an average of 5.6 per games. Of Canada's 76 medals from '92 to '06, nearly two thirds were won in "non-traditional" events, some in sports that barely existed in 1988. Of those 28, only 13 were won in sports other than long-track speed skating. In the traditional sports other than long-track, Canada is doing poorer now than we were 20 years ago, although using only medal counts as a barometer may be unfair to some sports like nordic skiing, where we're much more competitive now than we were a few years ago, although without the medals to show for it. What's my point? Canada doesn't have the talent base to be able to throw some money at a handful of medal contenders and expect that to put them on the podium. If Canada wants to continue to improve its medal count, we should give up on the sports that lots of people are already doing, and continue to push hard for the inclusion of new sports, like mixed curling, snowshoeing, and lightweight hockey. So, I agree that a perceived sub-par performance in Vancouver could lead to a scaling-back of OTP-like programs, but I'm not sure that that's going to make much of a difference in the long run. Canada will probably continue to do well in sports that we care about (hockey), particularly if other countries don't care about them (curling), but in sports that are hard to do and don't have big barriers to participation (track) we'll have to be content with an occasional outlier. |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Feb 18, 2010 17:09:20 GMT -5
I am sure if Vonn's fall today would have happened yesterday, the alleged shin issue would have been blamed.
|
|
|
|
Post by ahutch on Feb 18, 2010 18:49:41 GMT -5
That the ancient Greeks-- for whom war wasn't just a means to achieve other ends, but a mode of life in itself-- could take the Games seriously enough to cease all hostilities, then you'd think modern societies, for whom war is supposed to represent break-down and failure, could manage the same. Seems to me this could work both ways. In a society where war is considered "normal," we'd expect there to be carefully observed norms about how war relates to other aspects of life. On the other hand, if war is seen as a catastrophic breakdown, then it's natural for it to operate outside any norms. Personally, I'd rather view war as a breakdown, to be undertaken only against opponents who are clearly so unreasonable that negotiations (and Olympic truces) don't have any honest chance of being taken seriously. |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Feb 18, 2010 20:48:01 GMT -5
That the ancient Greeks-- for whom war wasn't just a means to achieve other ends, but a mode of life in itself-- could take the Games seriously enough to cease all hostilities, then you'd think modern societies, for whom war is supposed to represent break-down and failure, could manage the same. Seems to me this could work both ways. In a society where war is considered "normal," we'd expect there to be carefully observed norms about how war relates to other aspects of life. On the other hand, if war is seen as a catastrophic breakdown, then it's natural for it to operate outside any norms. Personally, I'd rather view war as a breakdown, to be undertaken only against opponents who are clearly so unreasonable that negotiations (and Olympic truces) don't have any honest chance of being taken seriously. Interesting, hutch, but the truth is we have neither: Wars of a certain type have become routine, yet they are always presented as these extraordinary ruptures-- i.e. in order to be more easily justified. The 20C was bloodier than ancient times, yet each instance of violence was understood by all parties as "exceptional" and "abnormal"-- increasingly so in the case of imperial "interventions" like Vietnam, Afghanistan (1 and 2) Iraq (1 and 2), Serbia, and numerous smaller actions. My point was that wars like this, while common in our time, have never been strictly "necessary" in the way that war was to the Greeks and their rivals, who lived from it spoils and organized themselves accordingly. We don't fail to suspend war during the Olympics because our enemies are considered too dangerous and implacable to be reasoned with; we don't do it because we don't feel compelled to, morally or otherwise. And we don't feel compelled to because we don't suffer very directly from the effects of these new kinds of wars, and because our "enemies" are generally poorer and weaker than we are, capable only of sabotage. It's actually imperial hubris and cynicism that killed the idea of the Olympic Truce, not the "special" nature of modern war. And, pq, I think Canada's involvement in Afghanistan is understood at the highest levels in terms of our national interest, and of defending elements in Afghanistan who are sympathetic to western interests and aims; but, that's not to say our involvement really is in our national interest, or that it would be just even it it were. |
|
|
|
Post by ahutch on Feb 18, 2010 21:17:41 GMT -5
It's actually imperial hubris and cynicism that killed the idea of the Olympic Truce, not the "special" nature of modern war. To say the Olympic Truce was "killed" is a little disingenuous. Thousands of years ago, there was a festival called the Olympics that featured a truce, which had petered out by around the 5th century AD. In 1896, Pierre de Coubertin created a sporting competition that featured the same name and claimed to be inspired by some of the same ideals as that ancient festival. Not surprisingly, a lot had changed in the intervening 1,500 years. These Games aren't held in Olympia, the competitors don't compete naked, and there has never been a truce associated with them. When WWI came, it was the Games that were suspended, not the war. I certainly agree with you about how things should be, and about the gap between rhetoric and reality -- it's just that nothing in the last millennium or so has given me any reason to expect anything in the nature of an Olympic truce. In terms of disappointed expectations, I find the concept of "Own the Podium" a far more egregious violation of the best aspects of the modern Olympic spirit than the lack of a truce, which was never really on the agenda in modern times. |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Feb 18, 2010 22:07:00 GMT -5
The idea of observing an Olympic Truce has actually been discussed in connection with the modern games. Or, if not a truce, at least a temporary cessation of overt hostilities (i.e. killing). And many have noted the hypocrisy associated with hosting the Games-- a modern symbol of peaceful cooperation-- while simultaneously pursuing war aims. This was, as I suggested, the official reason for the western boycott of the Moscow Games. It would be niave to expect the whole world to cease hostilities every four years for a couple of weeks, but I don't think it's a pipe-dream to expect the country actually hosting the Games to stop the killing for the duration-- unless it is subject to overt hostilities by another nation-- and it think it would be a powerful symbol. If Canadian soldiers are killed during these games, expect lots of other people to make this same point (there is a major new offensive ramping up in Afghanistan as we speak, in which more Canadian and Afghanis will almost certainly die).
|
|
|
|
Post by pq on Feb 18, 2010 22:28:11 GMT -5
... I don't think it's a pipe-dream to expect the country actually hosting the Games to stop the killing for the duration-- unless it is subject to overt hostilities by another nation-- I think this is a silly and naive notion, frankly, at least in light of the specific situation Canada is in wrt Afghanistan. If you believe Canada has no business having a military presence there (as I do), then we simply should not be there. However, whether or not you support the idea of what we're trying to achieve, if you accept that our troops have been given a deadly serious responsibility by our politicians (they clearly have), and you support our troops who have accepted that responsibility (I do), then you should agree that they need to have the flexibility to execute that responsibility (within the bounds of the law of war). I don't see in what scenario a two week "truce" would make any sense whatsoever for our soldiers and airmen in Afghanistan. "Stopping the killing," as you so indelicately put it, would serve no benefit to our troops, but would rather cost them momentum and give the "enemy" time to regroup, setting us back, and putting Canadian soldiers at greater risk. It's a nice idealistic objective, this "olympic truce," but in practice makes so sense, at least in the context of our current operations. |
|
