As readers of my blog should know, I am a great foe of nationalism and its retarded cousin patriotism. That said, I do believe I have found some patriotism I can get behind…
These and the other linked photos got the Winnipeg Blue Bombers‘ cheerleading coach effectively fired, but I’m not sure why.
I think Globe and Mail commenter “Jim Ray from GTA” has the best comment:
I think the cheerleaders involved should be arrested. We need to set a strong example that this type of behaviour will not be tolerated in the world of professional sports. I mean, what’s next? Professional athletes having intercourse out of wedlock? Experimenting with cannibas? This is a slippery slope people.
“Another Opinion” is pretty good too:
Nobody told me that dropping my drawers in public would ruin my boss’s career! I wish I had known this years ago!
For those confused, the building in the background is this.
A company that owns 11 McDonald’s restaurants in Nevada was fined one million dollars Wednesday after pleading guilty to employing 58 illegal immigrants. The company, Mack Associates Inc., knew the employees were illegal immigrants and had offered them names and social security numbers belonging to other people, the US Justice Department said.
The company pleaded guilty in federal court in Las Vegas to conspiracy to encourage and induce an alien’s unlawful residence in the United States and aiding and abetting an alien to remain in the country, the department said.
The company’s director of operations also pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting an alien to remain in the country.
And the former vice president of Mack Associates pleaded guilty to inducing an illegal alien to remain in the United States and faces a possible sentence of up to five years in prison and a 250,000 dollar five.
About 30 of the illegal workers have returned to their native countries while the rest were allowed to stay in the United States until the case closes. [Breitbart]
Sam: Just because a girl is pretty doesn’t mean she’s cool.
Neal: Ok Sam, first of all, of course it does. [Freaks and Geeks]
Regina is generally divided into different regions. It gets confusing because everyone has a different idea as to the proper boundaries and naming. My preference is this: Northwest, Northeast, South, East and Central. There are various other naming distinctions: North, North Central, Southwest, Southeast and West.
Here’s how my map works:
A: East, B: South, C: Central, D: Northeast, E: Northwest, X: No man’s land.
The most common divergence that many people would make would be the elimination of the top half of A from anything associated with “east”. However I don’t see how it could ever be considered Northeast, thus it must either be considered Southeast or East. B is clearly South, and not Southwest in any meaningful way. Perhaps the new subdivision under construction West of B should be considered. E & D might be combined to form North, but Northwest is quite accurate for E. Maybe E should remain Northwest and D should be just North. As for the Xs I really don’t know where they fit. The Westward X is somewhat Northwest but I wouldn’t really consider Rosemont Northwest, perhaps we should call it West Central. The more Eastern X is another confusing area because it has different connections, somewhat to Central, somewhat to East and somewhat to South. Douglas Park, though directly removed, seems like South to me.
For the record the City of Regina conveniently groups the city into North, West, South, East and Central.
I generally agree with the distinctions, however, they don’t follow colloquial usage. (In fact the city’s Omnibus survey uses different boundaries than the city itself.)
In the comments section ”nimble1″ responds to a post about The New Yorker’s lastest cover.
OMG!! Its RACISM… ohh sorry, actually it is FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!!! Geesh Get over yourselves!!!
People don’t seem to understand that freedom of speech does not absolve you from ridicule and shame. Freedom of speech means that you should be allowed the freedom to state your mind without the physical interference of government or others. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t racist. Freedom of speech does not negate hateful words. Just because one believes people should have the right to say it doesn’t mean that that person believes it to be correct or moral. Any right-thinking person should abhor racism and non-violently resist its usage while defending the right to be a racist.
(For the record I believe The New Yorker when they say it’s “satire”. It’s a clear response to the hoopla about “Obama-Osama”, America hating and the “terrorist fist jab”. Whether it was a smart decision to use it is a completely different question. Even Andrew Sullivan agrees with me.)
Even without fisticuffs, nightclubs are rife with violent vibes, including rampant “optic violence” such as leering, baleful stares and “cut eye” — disdainful, dismissive looks.
“Other than a prison, in what place other than a nightclub is stepping on someone’s shoes or looking at them the wrong way grounds for assault?” Rigakos asks. Nightclubs also reinforce gender, class and race divisions, he says, by celebrating hegemonic masculinity and femininity, creating red-roped VIP pens for the privileged and imposing racially exclusionary dress codes and music choices. [Leader-Post]\
Of course I believe that a private business should be allowed to do what it wants, but that doesn’t mean I want to ever visit such an establishment.
I still cringe when I recall the weekend, during junior year, that I accompanied my new best friend home. Her parents (Swarthmore educated themselves), after we were seated for dinner and commanded to say grace, posed a question that they’d been burning to know the answer to—why do Jews, after all these years, still carry a grudge about the Holocaust? This, by the way, felt less like a question than an accusation. At 19, the best I could muster was that blacks were still nursing a grievance about having been slaves, and even more time had elapsed since the Civil War than World War II. I realize now that these grown-ups really were not assaulting me, but raising what they considered to be a suitable topic of conversation for a Jewish guest, the first, apparently, to enter their home. This was not so shocking; we constitute only about 2 percent of the nation’s population.
My habitual muteness in these situations—a reflex of politeness, a journalist’s instinct to listen with a neutral ear, a female tendency to grant the other person the benefit of the doubt—doesn’t make me proud. At these moments—whether I’m “passing,” a fly on the wall, intentionally being provoked, or simply confronted with perplexing ignorance—I wish I had at my disposal the stun-gun comeback, the withering rejoinder that would silence the speaker, neutralize his words, force him to swallow even a micro-pellet of the poison that he is spewing my way.
If only I had this arrow in my quiver (and the balls to fire it) for my college friend’s D.A.R. mom and Fred Flintstone dad: When Clare Booth Luce, perhaps apocryphally, told a Jewish friend, “I’m so sick and tired of hearing about the Holocaust. Why can’t you people just get over it?” the Jewish lady replied, “I’m so sick and tired of hearing about the Crucifixion. Why can’t you people just get over it?” [Vanity Fair]
While making a respectable retort to the abhorrent Kay Hymowitz, Kerry Howley goes and undoes all of her good will:
A little noise in the data and another unfunny Judd Apatow movie are not reasons to dismiss an unambiguous long-term trend. [LA Times]
Why do children’s pyjamas need to be flame resistant?
Re: “Beliefs basis for Nichols’ appeal” (Leader-Post, June 19.)
I can sympathize with marriage commissioner Orville Nichols in his appeal against the decision of the Human Rights Commission. Imagine having to ask two men, or two women, to promise to “Love, honour, and cherish” one another. Those are such sinful acts!
E. J. Adams
Regina [Leader-Post]
