Judge Others by What They Do, Not What They Say

A few weeks before the 2011 Canadian federal election, Heather Mallick wrote an opinion piece in the Toronto Star titled "What if the Harper Government were to win a majority?" In it, she accuses the Conservative Party and Prime Minister Harper of being serial liars and hypocrites. In her hypothetical political apocalypse of a world where the Conservatives were to win the upcoming election, she predicted that "old-tyme religion will reign", "students would turn [professors] in for Wrongspeak and [they] would lose [their] job", and accused conservative ideology of "working for" a societal structure that leaves massive amounts of poor and unemployed. In her long list of atrocious policies she imagined the hypothetical Conservative majority would implement, she referred to the Prime Minister's treatment of his "enemies" as "Stalinist", while confidently asserting that

"Canada would increasingly resemble the U.S., a model that makes European countries shudder. Guns on the street, gated communities, rampant drug use, unlimited anonymous corporate political donations, no government safety standards for food and medicine, classrooms that resemble holding pens more than civilized safe rooms for the young to learn . . . If Harper got his majority, these things would hit us like an avalanche.

Citizens regarded as 'ethnics' would be courted until election day, and then abandoned. Forget family reunification, forget federal money to ease non-whites' path into Canadian society, forget English classes.

Women's rights would retreat, including abortion rights, access to medical advances and the right to go to court to protest inequality.

Everything would be up for privatization, from roads, parks and parking meters to schools and hospitals."

From Mallick's perspective, one would think of the Conservatives as reactionary, chauvinist, ultra-libertarian racists who would fundamentally dismantle Canada's hitherto existing society and reshape it into some kind of horrible arch-conservative dreamworld.

What would make someone so afraid of a Conservative majority that they would imagine such a world? What did the Conservatives do while forming a minority-government to make Heather Mallick so hysterical?

It seems that, rather than basing her opinions and predictions on what the Conservatives had actually done while forming the government, she based them on certain things they may have said or what she feared they might do - with no strong grounding in facts.

Nothing in what the Conservative Party had done up to then would have made her believe that "old-tyme religion" would reign, or that abortion rights would be repealed, gay marriage abolished, or anything else that she so fervently fear-mongered. Any reasonable, non-partisan person who assessed the Conservatives' platform and their previous policies would know that they would never introduce such reactionary social legislation, because it would mean the death of their mandate. Canada is, after all, a country that is leans left on social issues but is more fiscally conservative - the Conservative Party had done its best over the years to mold itself to fit into this niche.

This is not to say that the Conservatives had been completely centrist and pragmatic in their years of minority-government; they had enacted some rather minor tax cuts, business tax breaks, and a few pieces of "red meat" for their base - reforming the long-form census and purchasing some fighter jets. But what seems to be utterly incomprehensible to Mallick is that none of these things could have happened without other parties voting for them due to the minority-ness of the Conservatives' government - including her beloved Liberal Party. Even when the Conservatives did commit a truly anti-democratic act - the prorogation of Parliament before the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver - as much blame should be apportioned to the Governor-General for accepting the Prime Minister's request. The electorate as well clearly didn't think much of the other parties voting to censure the Conservatives, as their percent of electoral support only increased from the previous election.

In short, it appears that Mallick was judging the Conservatives by their words (or what she assumed was their nefarious, secret plan ensconced in their ideological id) rather than their actions. Their words may sometimes mark them out for being more ideologically on the Right, while their actions - for the most part - suggested that they much more often than not took the centrist approach to politics rather than a hard right one. [This may all change, as the Conservatives did indeed win a majority after the 2011 election and now have no need to court the votes of other parties in Parliament]

While non-conservatives in Canada may fear and imagine the worst from their newly-elected government, American conservatives have spent the last several years warning anyone who would listen of the "radicalness" of the Obama administration. The National Rifle Association, for example, has claimed that the President is merely biding his time for after the 2012 election to completely ban guns and abrogate the 2nd Amendment (the fiend!). They believe this, despite literally no factual policies or quotations from the administration, and after a United States Congresswoman was shot in the head by someone, and after the only policy that Obama has implemented with regards to gun control actually expanded Americans' 2nd Amendment rights.

American conservatives, just like Canadian non-conservatives, seem to be judging the President by what they think he will do, based upon what he has said rather than done.

If President Obama's statements were to become the laws that he actually signed, then conservatives may have something to dislike: he says that he favors higher taxes on the rich, stronger regulation for Wall Street, less loopholes for corporations, comprehensive immigration reform, strong action to tackle climate change, and advocates tolerance for religious and sexual minorities like Muslims and gay people. He also, as a presidential candidate, said that he would close Guantanamo Bay, end torture, end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, implement universal health care (while opposing an individual mandate) and generally reverse the violations of civil liberties undertaken by the Bush administration.

But in reality, President Obama has been almost the perfect Republican president. He signed into law an extension of the Bush tax cuts, has done (from environmentalists' perspectives) little to nothing towards tackling climate change, allowed Wall Street, Big Banks, Big Business, and corporations to generally escape from much harsher regulation, has stopped short of approving gay marriage, has continued and even enhanced Bush-era policies on civil liberties and fighting foreign wars, kept Guantanamo open, deported hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants, vastly increased unmanned drone attacks in Pakistan and other Muslim countries (resulting in the deaths of countless innocent civilians, including children) and has been mostly hawkish in handling Iran's development of a nuclear weapon. The Obama administration's much ballyhooed economic stimulus bill contained significant portions of neo-liberal, supply-side hot air, consisting of almost 1/3 tax cuts that do almost nothing in terms of actually stimulating the economy. Taking this into account, the stimulus was fundamentally conservative in its size and content.

The President's signature health care bill, conservative apoplexy nothwithstanding, is fundamentally a right-wing policy; as recently as 2008, its concept was endorsed by such conservative stalwarts as Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Jim Demint. The chief economist that helped Republican Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts implement what is essentially the same bill in that state also helped the President in developing the federal version. The Obama health care bill is based entirely upon an idea created by the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation, endorsed by multiple Republican leaders for almost 20 years prior to its embrace by Democrats, and is incredibly reliant upon the free market and private industry for its efficiency.

If President Obama had an (R) next to his name instead of a (D), conservatives would be ecstatic over his accomplishments. Judged by what he has actually done rather than what he has merely said, the President has governed in a fundamentally conservative fashion.

Voters, critics, and citizens need to judge politicians more by what they do, rather than what they say.

President Obama has said a lot of things about tackling climate change, while Prime Minister Harper has not; neither has, in the end, done very much to reverse the warming of the earth or man's impact thereupon. If the end result for both are the same, what difference then does it make that their opinions on what should be done are rather different?

President Obama has said he wants to see taxes rise (a pitiable amount) on the affluent, while Prime Minister Harper has expressly ruled that out; neither have actually raised taxes on anyone, making the President's statements (to this point) moot.

American conservatives don't like President Obama's policies mostly because he is a member of the Democratic Party - much if not most of his policies are fundamentally conservative in nature and would be applauded had they been done by a Republican administration. They are judging him more by what he has said (or what they think he will do) rather than what he has actually done.

Canadian critics of Prime Minister Harper appear as well to be judging him more based upon his party affiliation (or what they think this affiliation really means for as-yet unproduced policies) than on what he has actually done; small tax cuts, small free-trade deals, small movements to reduce the size and scope of the federal government do not by themselves constitute a fundamental remaking of the nature of Canadian society. Indeed, the Conservatives' self-stated goal is to replace the "centrist" Liberal Party; by moderating their social views and slowly implementing fiscal policies that for the most part can be agreed upon by many members of other parties, they are coming closer and closer every day to achieving this goal (the Liberals, it must be remembered, were the ones who drastically cut social spending and implemented the North American Free Trade Agreement after campaigning explicitly not to).

Canada's conservatives are not radicals - they will leave abortion and gay marriage untouched, and do nothing more than poke at the edges of reforming social legislation and welfare institutions. The Democratic Party and President Obama are also fundamentally a party of the center, with substantial overlap with the Right. Even the tax hikes they are discussing (dismissively accused of being unconscionably high) would do essentially nothing to halt or reverse the trends of income inequality. Indeed, many leading Democrats have expressed openness to massively cutting Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security - putting these societal institutions' futures in danger.

Judging by what they do rather than what they say makes the political process less hysterical and more open to serious, frank discussion that has a greater chance in resulting in policies that benefit the majority of society; projecting one's basest fears onto parties that represent those things that one dislikes the most only serves to reverse this democratic process.

Why is the NHL not a Canadian League?

Imagine, for a minute, that an alien was visiting North America for the first time and observed the National Hockey League. They would see:

about half the players are Canadian;

TV viewership in Canadian cities is enormous;

TV money paid by Canadian television corporations is worth hundreds of millions of dollars;

most of the coaches are Canadian;

most of the media interest generated is from Canadian newspapers;

the NHL was founded in Canada and has a headquarters in Toronto;

the championship trophy, the Stanley Cup, is named after a Governor-General of Canada and was intended to be awarded to the best amateur hockey team in Canada;

the teams with the most titles are Canadian (Montreal Canadiens and Toronto Maple Leafs);

the highest-attended teams are Canadian;

for the first several decades of its existence, the NHL Commissioner was Canadian;

the "national" in National Hockey League stood for Canada when the league was founded in 1917, consisting of only Canadian teams;

most of the post-season awards, like the Hart Trophy or the Vezina Trophy, are named after Canadians;

the majority of players in the Hockey Hall of Fame are Canadian, and indeed the majority of the NHL's superstars have been Canadian.

One would think, therefore, that the NHL is a Canadian league whose purpose was to cater to Canadian fans and provide a national sports league as an institution. But the exact opposite is true - the league is made up of 30 teams, only 6 of whom are located in Canada. Players are paid in American money, watched mostly by American fans, whose teams are owned mostly by Americans. The commissioner is an American who has made it the goal of the league to cater to American fans in an attempt to win over enough supporters to garner higher attendance and a more lucrative TV deal, thus earning yet more money for the American owners of the teams.

Clearly, the NHL cannot be called a Canadian league, unlike the Canadian Football League, for example. It is not entirely an American league, either, however, as the prior evidence shows.

But the question is why is the NHL not a Canadian league?

A Canadian league would be maintained and supported with the interests of Canadians and Canadian teams in mind, with goals of developing primarily Canadian talent and providing an institutional framework for a pillar of sporting culture in the country. The reason none of this is the case, as it is in European countries for example, is because the NHL is run as a business whose goal is to make money, not provide a sporting institution.

In other countries, like Germany and England, their number one sport has in the past decade or two become massively profitable. But this is a relatively recent trend, being massively helped out by the invent of satellite, pay-per-view television, globalization, the internet, and foreign takeovers by businessmen. Soccer leagues in Europe were set up around the same time that the NHL was being formed, yet these leagues were designed to be simple sporting institutions, to crown a national champion - not to make money for the owners. Obviously, if a club doesn't make enough money they can go insolvent and thus cease to exist, so money does play some factor. But it isn't the primary goal (or at least it hasn't been until recently) of soccer clubs to make a profit for their owners/shareholders. This is part of the reason why very small countries, like Portugal, Scotland, or Belgium, have their own soccer leagues rather than being a part of their bigger, richer neighbors. The NHL, by contrast, has always had this business-like orientation.

The first American teams were invited to join the league when Canadian teams from smaller cities were unable to keep up profitability. For a while, under the so-called Original Six, one could argue that the NHL was still a Canadian league that just happened to have some American teams in it - much like the CFL did for a couple years when there were a few American teams to maintain solvency. After all, even though Chicago or Detroit might win the cup every now and then, almost all of the players, coaches, management, etc., were Canadians who were winning a Canadian trophy.

But since the mid-60's, the NHL has slowly turned from a Canadian league to a sort of North American league with a decidedly pro-American interest. The reason for that is money. The United States has more cities with big populations and corporations able to support the millions of dollars and huge stadiums necessary to maintain a multi-million dollar salary. The potential TV audience in the U.S. dwarfs that of Canada - if only they can be cajoled into watching the game.

If one looks closer, it's obvious just how oriented towards American interest the league is and how much of that interest is in the desire of making a profit. For example, a Canadian league like the CFL has a website that caters to Canadians; the CFL has two official names and logos for French and English and the official website is in both languages. The NHL website is unilingual English and uses American spelling, rarely posting things that would pertain primarily to Canadians.

The game itself is also designed to generate money, unlike European soccer or hockey leagues. The ice is smaller in North America so the players are able to appear to skate faster, hit each other more, shoot more, score more, and fight more. Fighting is tolerated as it's believed to be a fan-pleaser.

With smaller ice, the stadium can be bigger, thereby bringing in more revenue. TV commercials are allowed, bringing in even more revenue.

More than half the teams are allowed to enter the playoffs, and each series is a best-of-seven, thereby giving the best possible chance of hosting multiple games, which leads to yet more revenue in tickets, merchandise, TV, etc. Ties have been eliminated in favor of overtime and shootouts, presumably because ties are boring and shootouts awesome.

Smaller ice size leads to more frequent confrontation between players, higher quantity of shots, more goals due to ricochets, etc.

By contrast, European hockey leagues have wider ice that provides for more fluid, stylistic play. Fighting is not tolerated and there are no commercial breaks. In places where hockey is very popular, most cities have teams and they are not required to pay a fee or guarantee profitability before entering the top division - all they have to do is prove they can compete on a sporting level. European soccer leagues haven't really changed the rules of the game or the size of the field to directly affect the nature of the game - the offsides rule has been kept in place, goal sizes are uniform, there are no playoffs to determine the national champion, etc.

Does a sports league have to be run as a business? Partly, but it shouldn't nor does it need to be its primary purpose.

Obviously, nothing is going to change the NHL from its current format, composition, or business interests. Most fans cannot imagine not having American teams, American fans, or American money. And if the NHL had never allowed American teams to join, then the all-Canadian version would certainly have smaller payrolls, less attendance, and possibly a lower standard of play.

But, it would also be a league where the champion was guaranteed to be a true national champion of Canada - unlike the past 18 years or so where an American team has won a Canadian trophy. It would be a league where it wouldn't matter how small your city or town was, if your team was good enough to play in the top division, it would. Unlike when Winnipeg and Quebec City lost their teams because the Canadian dollar was doing terribly against the American and revenues could not keep up with expenditures. Canadian fans wouldn't have to fume about having teams in places that don't like hockey, like Nashville or Phoenix.

It would be a true national hockey league that would be there for Canada and Canadians, not Americans and profit.

Why the Bills Should Stay in Buffalo

There's been a lot of talk, both before and after the Buffalo Bills signed a deal with Ted Rogers to play a series of home games at the Skydome, about the NFL team moving to Toronto. The deal appears to be a win-win for both sides; the Bills will receive about $78 million, a huge sum for a financially-struggling team in a small market, over five years to play a handful of regular-season and preseason games north of the border. With Bills owner Ralph Wilson planning to put the team up for sale when he either gets too old or dies (he is 92 years old), it seems pretty obvious that the team will move to Toronto and become the first non-American NFL franchise.

Except it's not obvious at all and shouldn't happen.

Some people seem to believe that Toronto just "deserves" a team, a rather absurd notion. Why exactly does Toronto deserve an NFL team? Surely, Los Angeles has more of a right to one than Toronto anyway? Proponents cite that Toronto has a history of supporting big American major league teams - like the Raptors and Blue Jays. While this is true, it's only true to a certain extent, the point being that, like most other cities, Toronto only really gets behind their teams when they're winning (the exception being hockey, of course). When the Jays were winning World Series and reaching the playoffs in the 90s, their attendance skyrocketed. Today they're doing pretty decently, but not great, and talk has begun of whether they should continue to stay in Toronto.

This kind of fairweather support is enough to generate income for teams in the NBA and MLB, but NFL fans tend to sell-out their stadiums every week even if the team is terrible. NFL higher-ups wouldn't want a Toronto franchise to reflect poorly upon them with lots of empty seats - they already have that in Buffalo. Some of the early games in Toronto also haven't seemed to display any kind of fervent desire to have the NFL in the city, either. If the Bills moved, as well, Toronto would be inheriting a terrible team that is famous for being terrible - they famously lost 4 Super Bowls in a row in the 90s and haven't made the playoffs in years. Would fans show up for that?

As well, the Skydome, while seating over 50,000, would immediately be the smallest stadium in the league. A Toronto NFL team would have to build a bigger, expensive stadium that Rogers may be unwilling to do, having already shelled out the tens of millions required to buy the franchise and paid the $78 million to get the team to play a few games in Toronto. What if the Canadian dollar's worth goes down against the U.S. dollar? Salaries will be much more expensive, on top of the other expenses required to maintain a competitive team. In a small stadium and a probably terrible team, would Toronto have the finances to have a viable NFL team?

For the television market, which is a massive source of money for the NFL, ratings for the CFL - supposedly a vastly inferior product - have exploded and consistently get higher ratings in Canada than for NFL games. If the NFL were going to expand, it would have to compete with a stronger CFL for the football market, something which it doesn't really have in the U.S.

It's not like Toronto is filled to the brim with would-be football fans just dying to get any football team in town, either. Toronto is home to the CFL's Toronto Argonauts, one of the oldest professional clubs in North America and the most successful sports team by far in Toronto with 15 Grey Cups. With a storied franchise whose history is long and successful, and more trophies than they can shake a stick at, the Argonauts should be raking in the dough from all those rabid Toronto football fans. Except the Argonauts have faced financial difficulty as a result of low attendance and struggle to maintain relevance in an alleged"crowded Toronto sports scene". Clearly, football fans in Toronto are fewer than need to be for an NFL team, otherwise they would be packing the Skydome for Argonauts games. It's also unclear what would happen to the Argonauts should Toronto receive an NFL team, something that no one in Toronto apparently cares about.

Unless there's another reason why Toronto seems to want an NFL team but doesn't care to support its own CFL team. The answer would appear to be, as with many other Toronto-related issues, a question of reputation. Toronto wants to be counted among the big, awesome American cities like New York and Chicago. They want to be included in conversations about the big-time NFL in cities all over America (maybe even the world?!). They want "Toronto" to be splayed across the New York Times, discussed on ESPN. According to this view, the CFL and Canada are merely holding back the city from gaining its rightful place among the elite (whatever that is) in the rest of North America, a.k.a. the U.S.

For financial, practical, and historical reasons this should not happen. The Bills are a deeply-cared about part of the Buffalo community. Yes, they may be perpetual losers, but they are Buffalo's perpetual losers, damn it. The city has suffered enough hardship over the years, and is currently a shadow of its former self. Having heartbreaking sports teams is the only thing that makes the city not feel so crappy about being so crappy. To take that away just doesn't make sense, for any reason or for anyone involved.

The Question of Autonomy

What's the difference between Quebec and the Sudetenland? Aside from the obvious different eras of time in which they exist, the two regions have both much in common and quite a bit that's different. The major theme binding the two together though, is the question of autonomy and how a state can deal with its disparate regions in a practical manner. The idea of self-determination, self-autonomy, sovereignty, whatever you want to call it, has led to bloodshed in the past, and continues to disrupt life as we know it in places all over the world, from Russia to Kosovo, from Turkey to Sri Lanka.

The first thing to consider with autonomy is the historical context. Quebec's is pretty straightforward: Originally colonized by the French, the sparsely-populated northeastern part of North America was a French-speaking outpost mainly used to sell furs for the European market. As France's other colonies in the Caribbean were much more valuable, they basically gave Quebec over to the British in relief after the latter won the Seven Years' War (French and Indian War).

Quebec's geographic position in Canada

Thus, the mainly Catholic and French-speaking former colony of France became a part of the British Empire, where Anglicanism and the English language were dominant. It wasn't as bad as it sounds, though, considering that the English actually gave Quebec quite a bit of leniency in regards to their civil laws, courts, language, and religion. Sure, they were still not allowed to independently rule themselves, something which helped cause the rebellions of 1837 and 1838, but these were put down relatively easily by the ruling British. As the decades passed and British North American turned into the Dominion of Canada, things were relatively quiet on the cultural radar of Quebec.

The 1960s is when things really heated up, during the so-called "Quiet Revolution". In only two decades, Quebec transitioned into a secular and industrialized province with a rather large portion of the population advocating separation from Canada, or at the least, significantly more autonomy. The sovereigntists helped elect the new Parti Québécois to power in the province, the first time a provincial government actively advocated secession from Canada. Two referendums on the subject of whether or not Quebec should be independent (or semi-independent), one in 1980 and one in 1995, both rejected outright independence, albeit by merely a whisker in 1995.

The Sudetenland's tale is quite different than Quebec's. Most people learn about the Sudetenland when studying the origins of World War II, in which the mainly German-speaking part of Czechoslovakia was willingly handed over to Hitler by the Allies in exchange for peace in 1938. The story behind the Munich Conference is, however, much more complex than this simple rendition shows.

The term Sudetenland didn't even come into usage until the 1930s, and was only then used as a way of differentiating German-speaking Bohemians from Czech-speaking ones. The history of Germans and Czechs in Bohemia goes back centuries, as ethnic Germans began settling on Bohemian crown lands around 1100. The two groups generally lived in harmony over time, though they did indeed have separate existences, divided into their own ethno-cultural groups. But Bohemia was included in first the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, then the Habsburg Monarchy, in which the German language and culture was accorded the highest status. To be non-German or speak a Slavic tongue meant to be backwards, a peasant, uncultured. Until the 19th century, Germans considered Bohemia and Prague as German as Bavaria and Munich.



Problems only really began to arise when nationalism was awakened in the Slavic peoples of East and Central Europe, who resented the condescension and privileges awarded to the smaller German group. As the Empire became more liberal and allowed greater freedoms to its constituents, the balance of power among Germans and Czechs began to drastically change from a German position of power to that of the Czechs.

Beginning in the 1850s and carrying through to the start of World War I, Czechs slowly began to award themselves more privileges and powers previously given only to Germans, causing both Czech and German nationalism to rise in competition. With the influx of nationalism, what would otherwise have been normal democratizations of daily life became battles in a struggle of "nations"; the reduction of German-language schools was seen as catastrophic, the question of an official language provoked heated debate, and tempers on both sides came to a breaking point.

World War I postponed a possible violent destruction of the Habsburg Monarchy, but the war's aftermath wasn't very acceptable to German-speakers either. Despite plebiscites held that declared German-Bohemian desire to join the new Austrian or German Republics, the Allies unilaterally declared the eastern rim of Czechoslovakia that was called the Sudetenland to remain under Czech control. The central government in Prague then ruled over some three and a half million Germans who did not desire to be a minority in a Slavic state.
The questions with which to be concerned are now: Is/were the minority justified in wanting more autonomy? In what way did/do the majority deal with the question of autonomy in regards to their minority? How were the situations of the Sudeten Germans and Francophone Canadians similar or different?

For both cases, both French-speaking Quebeckers and German-speaking Bohemians were justified in wanting some form of autonomy, but a better question would be as to how much autonomy they should be granted. Similar complaints from both groups were that they were underrepresented in the civil service, their language was not regarded in the same way as the majority's, and they both felt at least slightly oppressed. The major difference that enabled Quebec to peacefully remain part of Canada and allowed the fascist dictatorship in Germany to annex the Sudetenland was in how the federal government responded to calls for autonomy.

In Canada, French became an official language, the national flag got rid of any British sentiment, the national anthem is sung in both languages, and some accommodations were made to promote bilingualism, equality, and justice for both Anglophones and Francophones. Being a Canadian province means that Quebec is somewhat independent, having their own government and premier. As well, despite the rise of sovereigntist parties in Quebec, there was always still the option of voting for federal parties that were open to every province and every person, regardless of language or ethnicity. With the Meech Lake Accord and the Charlottetown Accord, Francophones could at least perceive that the government was making an effort to achieve some kind of balance, even if this attempt was ultimately dissatisfying and unsuccessful.

Notwithstanding the rather stark contrasts in the geo-political situations facing Canada and Central Europe in the 1930s, the central government in Prague made some major mistakes in attempting to deal with the issue of autonomy. In Czechoslovakia, the Germans were not the only ones who desired some form of autonomy; there were many Slovakians who also wanted to be free of what they saw as Czech dominance, as well as thousands of Poles, Ruthenians, and Hungarians. The problem with the First Czechoslovak Republic was that its leaders saw it as a nation-state, when in actuality it was 50% non-Czech. The national flag reflected on Czech and Slovak cultures; passports were in "Czechoslovak" and French only; coins, stamps, and other minutiae of daily life were only in Czech or presented Czech nationalist images; even political parties were divided along ethnic lines, meaning that a German in Bohemia could not vote for any party but the ethnically German ones. There was no "Bohemian Party" that was open to every ethnicity. There were no provincial parliaments in Czechoslovakia, meaning that the fervent German desire to at least partly govern themselves went unfulfilled. In Czechoslovakia's case, the German's perception was that they were unfairly persecuted and ignored because of their Germanness; this perception led to an opportunity for the National Socialist regime to exploit the situation, which they did with great aplomb.

Though calls for sovereignty or independence for Quebec have recently quieted down, the continuing strong showings of the Bloc Québécois and Parti Québécois demonstrate it still is an issue. When compared with the situation of the Sudeten Germans and Czechoslovakia - an experience that saw fascism, murder, and expulsion -, French-Canadians can count themselves lucky and fortunate to live in the tolerant, responsible, and open-minded country that they do.

Was "Own the Podium" A Success?

The 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics saw host nation Canada end up with 14 gold medals, more than any other competing nation and the most they have ever gotten at an Olympics. National pride was evident from coast to coast in this self-described polite and humble country, as evidenced by the selling of every single pair of those famous red mittens (about 3.5 million).

Much of the credit for this record haul can go to the Own the Podium program, developed in 2005 with the stated intentions of improving Canadian performance at the Olympics through increased funding for athletes. Two of the goals of the program are to "place first in the overall medal count at the 2010 Winter Olympic Games" and "place in the top 12 nations in medal count at the 2012 Summer Olympic Games".

The first test of the effectiveness of Own the Program was at the 2008 Beijing Olympics. The official website of Own the Podium says that Canada had a target of a top-16 finish, which they accomplished by finishing tied for 13th in overall medals. Success! Or, wait. Not quite. According to how the rest of the world measures successful nations at the Olympics, by gold medals won, Canada finished in 18th place, with only 3 out of 18 won. By overall medals, Canada achieved their objective, but not by gold medals.

Canadians went to the streets in huge numbers to celebrate the Winter Olympics success

Fast forward to the end of the Vancouver Games. The delirium over Canada's amazing feat of capturing 14 gold medals exploding over the country in an orgy of chest-thumping and flag-waving. While the host nation ended on a high note, a few days earlier at the Games and everyone was getting down on themselves due to Canada's low placing at the medal table. Excuses were rampant, criticism of Own the Podium was all the rage, and the amount of money spent on Own the Podium was seen as unjustified, considering the results. Federal funding of the program in the future was even put in doubt. In fact, at the time, it seemed more like the United States team which was "borrowing" the podium (the U.S. would go on to accumulate more medals at this Winter Olympics than they had ever done, topping the medal table for the first time in decades).

Though it seemed, about a week before the end of the games, that Canadians were forcing themselves to be consoled with the prospect of winning in Hockey, by the end of the Vancouver games, the nation was on a high, due to winning several golds in curling, speed skating, and ice hockey. Success!

Or was it? Yes, Canada won more gold medals than any ever has. That's an undeniably amazing result. But it wasn't the main intention for Own the Podium, as stated by the program's official website. It seems that, just like for the Beijing Olympics, the program was justified in calling victory only when it suited them, by turning the tables around on what "success" meant. Canada got 3 gold medals at the Beijing Summer Olympics, but received 14 at the Vancouver Winter Olympics. At the Summer Games, Canada told themselves they did well to finish in 13th place, even though they were actually 18th. At the Winter Games, Canada told themselves they were number one, though if they had measured themselves how they had in 2008 (and at every other Olympics), they would have been in third, a distant 11 medals behind the United States.

In the end, it doesn't matter too much how one labels success, only that they are consistent in how they call it. Yelling about being number one sounds hollow when just a few days before the entire program was being lambasted for failure to gain enough medals (not just gold).

So, what's it gonna be? Gold, or overall medals? The United States considers success at an Olympics in terms of overall medals. If they finished with less gold medals than other medals, which is what happened, they'd be fine with that. The rest of the world measures success in terms of gold medals won. What will happen in London 2012 if Canadian athletes win more gold than silver or bronze, but finish outside of the target spot? Will that be successful? If they win only one or a few gold medals, but enough silver and bronze to achieve a top-12 finish, will that be successful? Would it vindicate Own the Program? Only time will tell, but it shouldn't be too much to ask for clear, unbiased opinions in regards to results.