Adding the Commissioner's Award to my resume

Yesterday during the Gibson's Canadian Footaball League Players Awards, CFL commissioner Mark Cohon presented the Commissioner's Award to the Rider Nation.

"Each year, I have the privilege of handing out the Commissioner's Award to a person or group that has made an outstanding contribution to the development of Canadian football," he said.

"This year, the one hundredth year of the Saskatchewan Roughriders, I decided to pay tribute to a group that epitomizes the way CFL fans love our league: the Rider Nation, which collectively does so much to make our league vibrant and strong and fun."

"I really believe our league is home to some of the best fans in the world, including passionate supporters of the Lions, Stamps, Eskimos, Bombers, Cats, Argos and Alouettes," Cohon said.

"But few would dispute, especially in the Roughriders' centennial year, that there is something special about Rider Pride."

The award was accepted on behalf of the Rider Nation by three generations of a family of devoted Saskatchewan fans: Randy Goulden of Yorkton, Saskatchewan, a Rider shareholder and a season's ticket holder since 1979, her son Tom Goulden, 35, her grandson Jonathan McLeod, 8, and granddaughters Kathryn Goulden-Maddin, 14, and Calen Goulden, 9, and Amarah Goulden, 7.

On behalf of Rider expats like myself, I'd like to thank Mark Cohon and the CFL for the award.

My family and I have been fans for three generations and across four provinces. We've been season ticket holders in Regina; loyal followers when the Green and White come to Calgary; Banjo Bowl survivors; and SkyDome seat-fillers. We watched as American teams strolled into town and we're proud of this league long after they've left. We know when to boast and when to keep our mouths shut - and usually the silence that fills the room after a boisterous Stampeder fan talks a big game for 3 quarters says more than any rebuttal I could ever think up.

During this year's Banjo Bowl I was booed. I was laughed at. I had beer poured on me. I read a sign that said "100 Years of Suck" and noticed a Bomber jersey with the name "Twelve" and the number #13. If I was called any of the names that were shouted to me outside of CanadInns Stadium, I'd sue the person for defamation of character. But today, our character stands tall.

Fans of the Winnipeg Blue Bombers, celebrating 80 years of losing football this year, weren't commended on their spirit. Neither were the fair-weather fans of Calgary who tune in to Stampeder football in-between Flames' seasons. The Ti-Cat crowd might deserve a posthumous Commissioner's award - same with Edmonton. (And speaking of days of old, do the Argos even have fans anymore?) If you can find the 19,000 Alouette fans they might be deserving of a thumbs up (although, it's easy to build a fan base when a Grey Cup winning franchise is moved to your city...). The Lions would be the next deserving fan base for recognition. They always come out in droves and credit where credit is due, they made their Empire Stadium look fantastic.

Thanks Mark. We're glad to have this award. But it's not quite the one we want. We're after one, very special, award. And that's the Cup itself.

We can do it Rider Nation.

GO! RIDERS! GO!

Rougriders do it again!

The 2010 Grey Cup is set: a rematch between the Montreal Alouettes and the Saskatchewan Roughriders. More thoughts and analysis on the historic match-up to come this week.

Senator Hugh Segal... you're all right...

This week the progressive blogosphere exploded over the CPC Senate hypocrisy on bill C-311. Too many of us sat and watched Senate leader Marjory LeBreton, who was as giddy as a schoolgirl, snicker and smirk her way through interviews as she justified throwing out her responsibility to act as "sober second thought" to Canadians. But believe it or not - not all CPC Senators are hypocritical snakes in the grass. I know, I know. Hear me out folks.

The front page of today's Globe and Mail explores the idea of guaranteed income for low-income Canadians. The headline is absolutely atrocious: "To end poverty, guarantee everyone in Canada $20,000 a year. But are you willing to trust the poor?" If the point of the article was to debunk the myth that all Canadians in poverty are able-bodied, 20-somethings who thought it was better to stay home and play X-Box than finish high school and get a job - then the G&M didn't do a very good job. The article did feature a young single Canadian mother who had, despite many challenges, got a professional diploma in a growing field but because of the recession was not able to keep employment. However, I suspect the G&M chose that title because underlying the idea of guaranteed income, is the view of many "pick myself up by my bootstraps" Canadians who think that the poor and homeless are lazy and if you give them money they'll just abuse the system. And then who is left holding the bill? ME/US!

But one figure stood out. And that was CPC Senator Hugh Segal who didn't shake down the arguments with "real Canadians work for their money" but came to the issue with a refreshing approach for a conservative.

Senator Hugh Segal, one of the more vocal proponents of no-strings-attached aid for the poor, points out that the guaranteed-income program for seniors has greatly reduced poverty, especially among women.

“There's a bias that when given the chance people will be lazy,” he says. “That's not my sense of reality.”

Mr. Segal argues that giving money with no conditions removes the stigma and shame around poverty, allowing people to focus instead on how to improve their lot.

Requiring the poor to prove continually that they are deserving of assistance or threatening to pull help away without notice only discourages the risk-taking and confidence required to get out of poverty.

“It's dehumanizing,” Mr. Segal says. “Think of a mother having to negotiate though Plexiglas for enough money to feed her family.”

Or the mom who goes back to school to improve her prospects and loses her welfare payments because she is not seeking jobs.

It also costs people their privacy. Candace Witkowskyj, a legal advocate for welfare recipients in British Columbia, tells stories of people forced to take pictures of the contents of their drawers to prove that they lived alone or to get a doctor's note to justify a $20 emergency food voucher.

“If you think of the core premise of charity, it is not to treat people as lesser,” Mr. Segal says. “[It] is to give people a leg-up so they can have some measure of independence and can make some of their own choices.”

To do that effectively, he argues, we need to let them decide the steps they take to get there. Or – as Ms. Gray in Victoria puts it, saying she would go back to school for more training if she could count on covering rent and daycare – give some autonomy back to “people who are trying to be somebody in this world.”

A few weeks ago I blogged that there wasn't a progressive conservative left on the Hill. I may have to think twice about what I typed.

For once a conservative is arguing for more "freedom" and "liberty" for a population of the country and I can say with them, "Amen!" Of course, if you made above a certain % a year you would not qualify for guaranteed income, so it is not as if I would be able to imagine another 20G's in my pockets and what I would do with it. And even if it did come to me, I'll tell you where it would go: university debt. And after that? I'd put the remaining 3/4 into savings and with the rest I would pad my monthly allowance. And while that's good for me, it's not really the best thing for the economy.

The idea of this guaranteed income is that it is being spent back into the economy. Through rent, heating, electricity, food, clothing, transit tickets, daycare, school supplies, etc. It's not going into a bank account where it isn't touched for another 20 years. And what many opponents do not realize is that this money is going straight back into the economy and generating new jobs whether or not those getting GI are picking them up. Someone is! And that's good for the economy. To be sure, our current welfare system does do that. But not to the same extent and whatever is pumped back into the economy is surely eaten up by the bureaucratic costs that are spent implementing the system.

Hugh Segal is on the right track. Now he is a Senator who I could vote for (maybe). I have some reservations with what he thinks is best for CIDA and DFAIT. But on this issue, I wholeheartedly agree. And progressives should back him up.

Nanos blows up Harper's coalition straw man, sort of.

These results could not have come at a better time.

Despite the Tory foreboding about a possible coalition government, nearly 51 per cent of respondents believe a change in government would have no effect on the stability of our economy. In comparison, about 30 per cent believe change would be risky.

“In the past, one of the key messages of the Conservatives has been that changing a government in time of economic instability would be risky,” pollster Nik Nanos told The Globe. “This messaging is not likely to resonate in a significant fashion because the narrative for the past number of years has been political instability and Canada has generally weathered the Great Recession.”

Now, to be fair, the question asked in the poll was not, "Thinking of our current national political scene, some people think that a coalition government would be risky to our economic stability while others think that a coalition would have no impact on the stability of the economy. Which of these two views, if either, best reflects your personal opinion?"

That being said, it would take a pretty thick brick to not to see where the question was leading given the "current national political scene." There is no indication that when the writ is dropped, either the Liberal or Conservative parties would form a majority government. Now, a hypothetical change in government spells out a Liberal minority. But by what avenue will this minority be formed? By taking 36-38% of the popular vote? By joining with the NDP in a UK-esque coalition?

What would make said coalition palatable for Canadians? If the Liberals grabbed more seats than the CPC? Would a First-Past-The-Post "losers coalition" acceptable to the 60%+ voters who do NOT vote Conservative? It wouldn't fly with anyone who voted CPC, unless said voter wanted change just to get rid of Harper and prime their position for a return to 24 Sussex in the following election. We saw back in 2008 that the issue was not the Liberal and New Democratic parties working together per-se, but rather leadership at the top was the chief concern. If Ignatieff has a good election campaign, even a "loss" to the CPC (while gaining seats and popular support) could turn into post-election victory.

Unsurprisingly, 30% of those polled by Nanos thought that a change in government would be bad for the economy. And, lookie there! The Nanos poll shows Harper's support at 33.8% - which means we can all expect the same old spin from the right. Which really amounts to preaching to the choir. But hey, when you've sold your soul for a couple of cracks at putting together a two flimsy, policy-absent minorities that are devoid of real leadership, accountability and democracy - what else is there to do to pass the time than chirp talking points?

BloggingCon reactions: Typical and Predictable

The reactions of the Conservative blogosphere on today's Senate brouhaha is typical and predictable. As I suspected, they largely ignore the promises and principles of their favourite PM and view the defeat of Bill C-311 as a "spoonful of medicine" for Liberals.

Comments from Blogging Cons range from, "boo-yah suckas!" to "until we have an elected Senate we will play with the cards we are dealt."

Methinks there is a campaign slogan in all of this...

Chamber of sober second thought? Think again.

“Canadians from Newfoundland and Labrador to British Columbia remain ashamed of Canada`s senior legislative body. They are ashamed the Prime Minister continues the disgraceful, undemocratic appointment of undemocratic Liberals to the undemocratic Senate to pass all too often undemocratic legislation.” - Stephen Harper, 1996.

One of the Prime Minister's favourite pass times when he was a young, idealistic boy, was screeching about the Senate. It was easy to do back in the 90's when the LPC controlled both the House of Commons and the Senate. Today, however, things have become quite complicated for the member of parliament from Calgary Southwest. Or so it seems. You think it would bother someone to go back on their principles so easily? But clearly, it doesn't.

Today, unelected Conservative Senators took the opportunity to pull a fast one on the country and defeat an environment bill that had support from the majority of elected members of parliament. How could this happen? All because 15 Liberal senators were absent and the Prime Minister's unelected Senate Squadron (save for 1 Bert Brown) called a snap vote - knowing they had a majority on the issue in the Red Chamber.

Ah, so this is how it is going to be in a minority parliament. If you cannot break the will of the majority of Canadians in the House of Commons, just stack the Senate with people who will do what you tell them and voila! Problem solved! Simply wait until a piece of pesky legislation makes its way to the Senate, pray that a few Liberals are absent, and then strike it down. (The moral of the story for Ignatieff: never let your Senators leave the Senate when it is in session. Ever. I'm talking setting up cots in the Chamber and supplying them with 4 months of canned goods and bottled water.)

To be sure, this kind of behaviour is far more nefarious than the rubber-stamping that went on in the Senate during the days of Liberal majorities. This kind of behaviour is, to say the least, the height of hypocrisy for the PMO. The rationale? Bert Brown wrote a handy little piece designed to cover the ass of the Prime Minister. In it he basically gives Harper a pass on following through with any of his Senate bitching since puberty.

Prime Minister Harper was faced with growing Senate vacancies after more than a year in power. That brings me back to (the) Senatorial Selection Act, the bill I speak to today, honourable colleagues.

This bill is not constitutionally challengeable because it is an “offer” from the Prime Minister to the provinces to hold Senatorial elections. It is in no way a legislative command. Provinces will not be forced to hold such elections. There will be no threats, no pressure, and no penalty – only the will of the Canadian voters.

This Bill is but the first step to a reformed Senate. The next two steps can only be done when elected Senators prove their worth to their provinces and when elected Senators are close to a majority in the Senate.

Within a decade that is possible. At some future point, the provincial governments and/or Parliament will need to draft a stand-alone constitutional amendment to agree on the future representation in the Senate and retain the supremacy of the House of Commons without crippling the powers of the Senate. Faced with a confirmed constitutional reform of the Senate, the Senate chamber has only a 180 day suspensive veto.

It is a perfect smokescreen! And to think, I, at one time, actually bought all of Harper's "elected senate" mumbojumbo. What Bert Brown describes is the downloading of federal representation to the provinces - an act that will only be accomplished by the most staunchly ideological conservative governments and their populist premiers (read: Ralph Klein). Instead of leaving Senate vacancies, as a way of prodding the provinces to hold Senate elections alongside provincial elections, Harper - and every prime minister after him - will continue to stack the Senate until people "wake up." (Now that's insulting to the Canadian people.) And instead of approving monies from the federal government to cover the costs of a Senate election during provincial elections, Harper is going to leave that up to the provinces because executing the "will of the people" ought to be paid for out of the pockets of the people.

As a supposed "economist" Harper ignores the power of incentives when it comes to Senate reform that could be achieved, well, any time now. His will to fulfill his own promises to his own electorate is hampered by his inability to persuasively incentivize Senate reform until his constituents muster up their own will to harass their provincial governments.

And that's how you sidestep responsibility for a 23 year old pillar of Western Canadian conservative federal politics.

I can hear him now: "People of Canada! I implore you to increase the costs of your provincial elections so you can elect Senators-in-Waiting for me to potentially appoint to the Senate as long as they are Conservatives and don't mind being told what to do. Until you wake up and realize the tyranny of government, but not MY government, you will be ruled by an authoritarian Senate, although at the moment things are pretty good right now but they'll get worse if you do not do something."

Harper's favourite motto used to be "Reeeeeefoooorm!" when asked about the Senate. Now , when governing times are tough, his motto is "If you cannot beat 'em, join 'em."

Harper makes the rules: Afghanistan Edition

I can see the rationale. The PM does not believe he has to seek the approval of parliament to extend the Canadian Forces mission in Afghanistan since the new post-2011 non-combatant role will consist of training the Afghan police and military forces. In other words: we're not getting into harms way, so what is there to discuss?

And while I would hesitantly agree that the Canadian military has a non-combatant role to play in the civil, political, economic and structural "reconstruction" of Afghanistan - when the PM circumvents parliament because he doesn't think the consequences of his decision are a matter of life and death, he is forgetting that the PMO answers to the Canadian people. Not the other way around.

While executive decisions are my favourite types of decisions to make, it is with extreme caution that I would simply write-off the long-term consequences of Canadian military engagement in Afghanistan - be it combatant or non-combatant. Peace, as I have said before, is not merely the absence of violence. The message that is sent when Canada keeps our military engaged in Afghanistan to do military and police training, is that we value the service of the military and civilian police forces to fight the outright forms of violence, namely, terrorism; over more systemic forms of violence that are part of Afghan society, such as the subjugation of women and girls. What if you were to put this question to the Canadian people, what answer would you get?

Would you rather see the Canadian government engaged in Afghanistan in non-combatant military presence; or through CIDA focused on women's education and human rights?

You could substitute the latter option for any number of issues that are plaguing Afghanistan's economic and social development. The point being: military engagement only builds so many inroads into a society. If Canadians want to work along side the Afghan people to build peace in their country and the region, it will take more than training police and military personnel. It will take MUCH more. If Canadians want to see the seedlings of peace and security in Afghanistan then we should be doing more to promote literacy among women and girls. We have to end cycles of domestic violence by raising a generation of children who are secure in their rights as human beings. It is not an easy task, and many War Hawks will state that military security is the first step to development.

In a post Cold War world, I am not so easily convinced of this argument since we have seen how civil war, economic growth, and development are linked together, acting as a set of dominoes. Economic growth is painfully slow for economies of post-conflict zones. And as such, development is set back. Moreover, governments make poor economic choices when they emerge from a period of civil conflict, spending even more money on defense than in pre-conflict times to protect the status quo from another uprising. This, in turn, depletes what ever money is available for public services that have been disrupted, if not destroyed, by conflict. To which foreign aid can step in and provide some relief, but that doesn't change the fact that government military spending usually, and predictably, increases as foreign countries take responsibility for domestic services.

Is there a place for Canada in a post-conflict Afghanistan? Yes. Should it fall on the military to be that role? Maybe. Whatever we decide, we must decide it together in democratic fashion. Leadership should come from parliament and decisions should be made by a vote - preferably consensus. Afghans, if we can trust what their government is saying and the reports from the international press, want Canadians and foreign states to help them rebuild their country. There is a need for our expertise and our skills. Are we putting our best foot forward? Is this new non-combat 2011-2014 mission the thing that will have the most impact on peace and development in the country? I don't know. But what I do know is that without debate, without consultation, without open analysis we will never know if we are on the right path.

Paul Martin stands up for Waterloo

“If we continue like this, we’re going to become a small, close-minded country,” - PM Paul Martin on the direction of Canada under Stephen Harper.

You have to admit, he's still got it.

If potash is "strategic" then what is uranium?

These are some ballsy and gutsy moves coming out of the Saskatchewan Conservative caucus.

A Saskatchewan Conservative Member of Parliament wants to see legislation that could make it easier for foreign investors to buy Canadian uranium mines.

Say what?

Didn't we just do this? Didn't this government just say to their constituents, "Hey! To hell with your $40 billion dollars! We're going to stand up for Canada and protect our strategic natural resources!" I wonder, if Potash is considered a "strategic" resource (of which 95% is exported) then what would you classify uranium? You know what I'm talking about. Uranium: the stuff that you make atomic weapons out of.

Apparently, or I should say, astonishingly, uranium is exactly the kind of resource some Conservative MPs think we should be selling off to foreign investors.

Trost said the rule changes proposed in the uranium mine ownership act could boost the economy.

"There's been Asian interest not only in Saskatchewan but also in Nunavut to expand the mines," Trost said. "When you have more players, more senior mining companies, bidding to develop mines it helps the junior mining sector."

Trost said Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall and three former Saskatchewan premiers support the move.

However, Regina Liberal MP Ralph Goodale says he's opposed to the bill.

"It removes some very important elements in terms of national policy with respect to the development of Canada's uranium resources and that's especially important to a province like Saskatchewan."

So, competition for uranium would boost the economy but competition in potash would not result in a net benefit to the country? This kind of flip-floppery makes my head want to explode. But since it has been 10 years since I have left my native province, the real question remains: will anyone in Saskatchewan notice this double standard? To which I would reply: that depends on when the news is broken. More specifically, when you make such an announcement, are the Roughriders playing well, or are they playing poorly? Cause if they are playing well, I highly doubt anyone would care.

At least there is 1 MP from the Land of Living Skies that is walking the walk he has been talking. And that's Ralph Goodale.

"[Trost's proposal] removes some very important elements in terms of national policy with respect to the development of Canada's uranium resources and that's especially important to a province like Saskatchewan."

If I'm reading correctly, Goodale is talking about the importance of national resource management policy. Some might call the role uranium plays in said policy as "strategic." In response, Trost tells all those Communists in opposition to his proposal to hold their horses.

Trost said his private member's bill is unlikely to pass any time soon because the government has other priorities.

Which include sole-sourced fighter jet contracts; cutting funding to Aboriginal women's groups; and telling other states to abide by international human rights declarations while we fund businesses who exploit sub-standard working conditions and environmental law overseas.

Ironically, when you stack up Trost's private-member's bill against all that other stuff, it actually doesn't look that half bad.

BHP Fallout: Jim Prentice resigns

Wow. This has got to have been the craziest 24 hours for Canadian conservatives. First, BC Premier Gordon Campbell resigns. Next, BHP Billiton's $40 billion dollar bid is rejected. Today, Jim Prentice announces he's done with federal politics, with CTV citing his displeasure from being taken out of the role of Industry Minister and handed the assignment of being the Environment Punching Bag.

And who is the Industry Minister at the moment? Tony Clement. And who rejected the BHP deal? Tony. And who wishes he was Industry Minister (if we are to trust the MSM), Jimmy. Do you catch my drift?

The question is obvious: why leave now? Why, after the rejection of what would have been the largest foreign acquisition of a Canadian company (only by defacto since the majority of shareholders are Canadian since it is not a crown corporation), would Prentice choose today to be the day he announces he's leaving politics? Why not, last week? Or in a week from now?

Is it coincidence that Prentice is resigning at this particular moment? Maybe. Is this just bad timing? Did he circle this date in his calendar and forget that the BHP decision was going to happen the day before? We'll never know. Unless he lets the proverbial cat out of the bag.

C'mon Jim. We all know you want to dish the dirt. But do not worry, we're not going anywhere.

Take a number Inky Mark

It's the same old story progressives hear in almost every single election or by-election season. Somewhere out there, there are citizens that want to run for the Conservative party, and if they are not on Stephen Harper's speed dial, the likelihood of winning the nomination process (if there is one at all) is slim to none. And not for lack of trying or organization. Rather, because there is usually someone else that has been pre-selected for reasons the party never divulges (obviously).

This time it is happening in Dauphin-Swan River in rural Manitoba. A riding which was held by CPC MP Inky Mark, who began as a Reformer - turned Canadian Alliance - turned Conservative. He stepped down to run for Mayor of Dauphin and was unsuccessful. Now, with the Dauphin-Swan River byelection called, he's coming out of the woodwork to express his displeasure at the nomination process, or lack thereof to be more specific. He even goes so far as to call the process "unfair."

Mark said in an interview that he purposely announced he was leaving a year early so the party would have time to hold a competitive nomination process.

Instead, only nomination contestant Robert Sopuck was recognized by the party, despite other local Tories wanting to run.

Mark said he complained about irregularities in the process to his Manitoba caucus colleagues at least twice.

"After spending over 13 years in the riding, not allowing the membership base to have a say in who should replace me is just not right, and not one of [my fellow MPs] … would utter one single response," he said.

"If you believe in democracy of any kind, it's just not right."

I apologize for not being too sympathetic. I mean, are these tactics not endemic to the style of Stephen Harper's governance?

Just read his words again: after spending 13 years in the riding, not allowing the membership base to have a say in who should replace me is just not right, and not one of (his fellow MPs) would utter one single response. If you believe in democracy of any kind, it's just not right.

Does Mark actually believe that one of his colleagues is going to go to the press and call out the party? I ask Mark this question: why were you not at the door of the Globe and Mail, National Post, CBC, CTV, etc. when Helena Guergis was dumped? Or when Rob Anders' riding is manipulated from top to bottom to ensure that he remains the CPC candidate, despite overwhelming calls from his constituency to hold a fair, transparent, and democratic nomination race? If you ask me, Inky Mark is starting to looking like the Little Red Hen.

Moreover, he's been working for a prime minister that has no ethical qualms with misinforming the public as to our parliamentary democracy! And lest we forget the control the PMO places on every single soundbite, interview, spending announcement, or policy recommendation that comes from the mouth of the lowliest of Harper's MPs. Are we to be shocked when a nomination contest for a guaranteed Conservative win in a rural byelection is shut down and the candidate is hand selected by the party? I am not.

My advice to Inky Mark: if you have more complaints of this nature, take a number and get to the back of the line. This is not headline news you're bringing to the table, buddy. We've seen this movie before and we know how it ends.

Roughriders have "nothing at stake"

For Halloween this year the Saskatchewan Roughriders decided to dress up like the Winnipeg Blue Bombers and crapped the bed against the BC Lions. Losing 23-17 in Vancouver, the Riders are on a four game losing streak. Let me say that again: four game losing streak. And all I read in the papers and online is "boy, they sure haven't played well, at least they have a home playoff game." And isn't that something to be proud of? A 10 and 8 season - at best - hosting a playoff game. The last time a 9 and 9 team hosted a Western playoff game was in 2004 when the Riders (9-9) went to Edmonton (9-9).

Let me say this: the Saskatchewan Roughriders only have a home playoff game by the grace of God. It is only because we jumped out of the gate quickly that we are going to play the Western semi-final at Mosaic Stadium at Taylor Field. If we finish 9 and 9, which is a very real possibility, we'll be "hosting" an Edmonton team at 8-10 - neither of which deserves to host a playoff game on paper.

Am I jumping off the bandwagon? No. My seat is permanently fixed and has been since 1984. But am I writing off this season? Absolutely. I mean, has the team given me any reason to be hopeful that we'll win the Western Semi-Final, let alone think about going to Edmonton for the Grey Cup. Nope. They haven't given their fans a glimpse at a championship team in 5 weeks going on 6.

What I dread is not an embarrassing loss at Taylor Field two weeks from now. What I dread is next season. What I dread is another year with Taman at the helm. What I am preparing to mourn, is the era of winning football. And no, 9 and 9 is not "winning" football. Since 2004, 0.500 doesn't cut it. Making the playoffs doesn't cut it. A home playoff game, doesn't cut it. Championships. That's what counts.

And last time I checked, Taman has never built a championship team. He has been a part of winning organizations, but riding the pine isn't the way anyone wants to get a ring.

The last time the Riders were 9-9 was in 2006 which was subsequently Danny Barrett and Roy Shiver's last year with the team, ending an era of so-so football. Let us not go down that path again. Even finishing at 10 and 8, it seems clear to me that Taman the only thing our GM has the capability of managing is an early departure from the club. Ken will retire (which should be a hint to Daly and Etcheverry) and our sights should be set on bringing in a new, fresh, coaching staff.

I'll take whatever these Riders are going to give us in the last two games of the 2010 season. I hope it will be two wins. Which I hope will lead to a third win and a birth into the Grey Cup. A four game win streak isn't impossible. After all, we've seen much, much worse.

GO! RIDERS! GO!

THIS JUST IN...

Practice has gone out of style for the Saskatchewan Roughriders. According to Rod Pedersen's blog, the Riders are not taking the field today and will hit the turf tomorrow, instead. Comments on the news range from "WTF?!" to "This decision is good going into the playoffs." My take? What's left to practice for?

The psyche of the Rider organization is sickeningly transparent: we've already earned a coveted home playoff game; does it matter if we win it? Perhaps for Christmas, Rider Nation should boycott purchasing Rider gear to send a message to the Board: give us something to be proud of in 2011.