Green is the colour
football is the game
We're all together
and winning is our aim
So cheer us on in the sun and rain
Saskatchewan Roughrider is our name
Well as I have just finished my first season of summer flag football, I thought I'd put in my two cents on how awsome it is that the Roughriders are 6-2 this season.
It's nice that in the first season on Kent Austin back with the riders (He was their quarterback the last time they won the Grey Cup) that they are having some success. What a move it was to get Kerry Joseph. I was a long suffering fan of the team for 12 years, it's nice to have one that looks as good as they do now.
My dad bought season tickets the year after they won the Grey Cup in 1989. I went to almost every game over the next 10 years, and the occasional game after I moved to Ottawa in 2000. I have never seen fans like the Rider fans, they eat bleed and sweat green! A lot of them have to come in from several hours away just to see the games. I remember one guy telling me that because he had inherited the tickets from his dad, he's been considered a season ticket holder since before he was born! (he has been going to games since he was 3 years old!)
I miss the sense of community that comes with the sort of communal emotional experience that is being a football fan. 10 years of 9 games a season. They are not what you would call friend but the feeling of cameraderie is there. I mean how many people can share the ins and outs of a CFL team with you, given that so many players switch teams so often these days.
I really hope for all those long-suffering fans that we may be at the beginning of something good, hell we might even have a home playoff game! (There hasn't been a home playoff game since like the mid 80s if not earlier..)
August 26, 2007
August 08, 2007
Interesting debate
I just read a post on my friend Pat's blog and it got me thinking. I also managed to stumble upon a particular series in the " Great Debates Series which highlighted again some of the same issues. Now I am not one to necessarily agree with Ignatieff on everything, particularly since his support of the Iraq war (which he sort of maybe recants here and his somewhat failed entry into Canadian politics, but he has a good point in this instance.
Igantieff simply asks the question "Whose history are we talking about?" in response to Jack Granatstein's contention that we don't teach enough history to Canadian and that Canadians do not know their history. Now the larger point they both agree with but Granatstein seem to imagine that there is this central "Canadian" history that emerges, and needs to be taught, and dismisses to large degree the movement towards social history.
Now I am a person who focuses mostly on economics and politics and so even though I think these are important there needs to be a role for social history. For what is history but the story of a people? The move towards social history also adds colour and diversity to the understanding of Canada. We need to appreciate that the history of Canada is not only the history of the white Canadians.
My issue with Pat's posting is that he falls into a similar as many who in general tend towards the Conservative side of the political spectrum. He suggests that the reverence Americans have for the office of their Presidency is something to which Canada should aspire. I profoundly disagree. We have never had the temerity to imagine that we have a manifest destiny, that somehow we are a chosen people, like our friendly (most of the time) neighbours to the South. Pat is right however to link his ideas to imperialism. I would imagine that most Canadians would shrink away from any attempt at overt Canadian imperialism. Canada as a country with Colonies? How is that compatible with democracy is the first question one must ask. (whether Canada fits into the American imperialism or is itself an imperial power today I leave to the Marxists)
As John Ralston Saul writes in Reflections of a Siamese Twin" The United states ... is the natural prolongation of the European idea. It is the European state personified. It has become what France, Germany, England and Spain dreamt they might become if only they had had the space", this is compared and contrasted with the Canadian nation state. In fact the central argument of his entire book, or at least a large portion of it, is that we have to understand that Canada is not in the European model. It is not, and cannot and has never been an example of a tradition European based nation state. He argues that this is our central strength. And while I certainly do see things that can be improved upon and things that are done better outside our borders, to ignore that central reality is to betray our Canadian identity.
Igantieff simply asks the question "Whose history are we talking about?" in response to Jack Granatstein's contention that we don't teach enough history to Canadian and that Canadians do not know their history. Now the larger point they both agree with but Granatstein seem to imagine that there is this central "Canadian" history that emerges, and needs to be taught, and dismisses to large degree the movement towards social history.
Now I am a person who focuses mostly on economics and politics and so even though I think these are important there needs to be a role for social history. For what is history but the story of a people? The move towards social history also adds colour and diversity to the understanding of Canada. We need to appreciate that the history of Canada is not only the history of the white Canadians.
My issue with Pat's posting is that he falls into a similar as many who in general tend towards the Conservative side of the political spectrum. He suggests that the reverence Americans have for the office of their Presidency is something to which Canada should aspire. I profoundly disagree. We have never had the temerity to imagine that we have a manifest destiny, that somehow we are a chosen people, like our friendly (most of the time) neighbours to the South. Pat is right however to link his ideas to imperialism. I would imagine that most Canadians would shrink away from any attempt at overt Canadian imperialism. Canada as a country with Colonies? How is that compatible with democracy is the first question one must ask. (whether Canada fits into the American imperialism or is itself an imperial power today I leave to the Marxists)
As John Ralston Saul writes in Reflections of a Siamese Twin" The United states ... is the natural prolongation of the European idea. It is the European state personified. It has become what France, Germany, England and Spain dreamt they might become if only they had had the space", this is compared and contrasted with the Canadian nation state. In fact the central argument of his entire book, or at least a large portion of it, is that we have to understand that Canada is not in the European model. It is not, and cannot and has never been an example of a tradition European based nation state. He argues that this is our central strength. And while I certainly do see things that can be improved upon and things that are done better outside our borders, to ignore that central reality is to betray our Canadian identity.
August 01, 2007
Conservatives still have to follow the law
Thank god someone had the good sense to stand up to the conservatives on the issue of the wheat board monopoly. They were told today that they have to get a vote in parliament in order to remove (or destroy) the wheat board's monopoly in the Western Canadian trade in barley.
Now I personally disagree with this policy for a number of reasons but most troubling for me, has been the totally disrespectful and irresponsible way they have been trying to implement this policy. They started by not allowing any debate on the issue and censuring the head of the wheat board with a gag order. Then they held a plebiscite on the issue in which they muddied the waters with unclear questions, they did not receive majority support for the option they are promoting and called it a success! You can see the questions here
Anyways at least there was a judge willing to stand up the bullying of the Conservatives!!
I think they really need to remember their roots and their supposed democratic credentials. They seem intent on doing everything in the dark and not having public debates. I suppose they've taken some lessons from the Liberals.
I think the real question is whether the conservatives actually have any of the feigned outrage left after they have basically become the new Liberals. They deserve all the criticism they have received. I wonder if they can come up with any ideas that aren't stolen from the Liberal playbook this fall.
Now I personally disagree with this policy for a number of reasons but most troubling for me, has been the totally disrespectful and irresponsible way they have been trying to implement this policy. They started by not allowing any debate on the issue and censuring the head of the wheat board with a gag order. Then they held a plebiscite on the issue in which they muddied the waters with unclear questions, they did not receive majority support for the option they are promoting and called it a success! You can see the questions here
Anyways at least there was a judge willing to stand up the bullying of the Conservatives!!
I think they really need to remember their roots and their supposed democratic credentials. They seem intent on doing everything in the dark and not having public debates. I suppose they've taken some lessons from the Liberals.
I think the real question is whether the conservatives actually have any of the feigned outrage left after they have basically become the new Liberals. They deserve all the criticism they have received. I wonder if they can come up with any ideas that aren't stolen from the Liberal playbook this fall.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)