Blogue||Nous sommes - noussommes.ca

Following his two goal performance in a 3-1 victory for Italy over the United States at the Confederations Cup soccer tournament, Giuseppe Rossi finds himself a topic of discussion among American sports writers and commentators.

You see, Rossi is originally from Joisey (also referred to New Jersey) who happens to have dual American and Italian citizenship who decide to play soccer for Italy.

The 22 year-old Rossi is such a special talent several European teams have expressed interest in him. After starting his professional career at FC Parma in Italy, Manchester United acquired his services until they sold him to Spanish club Villareal where he currently plays. Count ‘em, that’s three major soccer nations who saw something in him.

It wasn’t long before he caught the eyes of the Azzurri - Italy’s national side - and he’s been representing them at every level since 2003.

For its part, USA soccer has come under some criticism for not trying harder to keep him within the American system. In fairness, Rossi and his family were committed to Italy, so I’m not sure how much then-coach Bruce Arena could have done. Still, he could, should have tried, no?

Does anyone have a problem with Rossi’s decision for choosing Italy over the United States? I don’t and in the case of Rossi, the American media doesn’t either. Put it you this way, who would you choose if you had the choice between a soccer powerhouse like Italy or USA? Not to disparage the U.S. program. The United States have steadily remained a top 15 soccer nation in recent years.

By this point this example should remind Canadians sports fans of a similar situation with Owen Hargreaves. Hargreaves was somehow overlooked by Team Canada but was good enough to be signed by Germany’s Bayern Munich - one of the world’s biggest and successful clubs. His development there eventually earned him a spot on England’s national side and represented them at the 2006 World Cup.  I didn’t see Hargreaves’ decision as anything but a wise move.

Jonathan de Guzman is another stand out talent born in Canada who decided to play for another country. This time, the nation in question is yet another great soccer nation: The Netherlands. His club stint was with Feyenoord and he made his international debut for the Under-21 Dutch national team in 2008.

The history of soccer has been filled with similar cases. Great players have often played for nations other than their place of birth albeit each for their own reasons. Alfredo di Stefano, one of the greatest players in history, was born in Argentina and ended up playing for Spain. Omar Sivori, also Argentinean, played for Italy. Brazilian player Alessandro dos Santos (Alex) represented Japan. Even the great Juste Fontaine wasn’t born in France proper but rather in Morocco. But that brings into question former colonies of imperial powers. My point is that Rossi and Hargreaves are hardly alone as these precious few selected examples show.

And it doesn’t stop at soccer.

In hockey, Brett Hull, like de Guzman, was ludicrously called a “traitor” for choosing to play for the Team USA back in the 1980s. His situation was a little different. A marginal player early in his career, he knew he would never crack a Canadian line-up knee-deep in talent. Team USA offered him a spot in 1986 and he took it. By 1989, Hull was on his way to becoming one of the most prolific scorers in the history of the NHL.

Pro heavyweight champion Lennox Lewis decided to box under the British flag even after winning a gold medal for Canada at the 1988 Olympics in Seoul. Tennis player Greg Rusedski also bolted for the UK.

When it comes to sports, is it right to hold back an athlete in the name of nationality especially if that nation simply can’t offer anything?

In the case of soccer in particular, North America is simply not the best place to be. If Europe comes knocking, they have players at “buon giorno, bonjour, guten tag, and hello”.

“In our modern eagerness to be tolerant, we have come to tolerate things which no society can tolerate and remain healthy.” Brian Cleeve, 1938.

Did you hear about the ethics and religious cultural course (well, debate is a strong word. Did you expect being consulted?) and its aim to make us all tolerant and transcendent souls?

I have nothing against the course itself (you’re reading a post by a guy who feels “Humanities” courses have great merit) but I don’t see the point in paternalistically forcing private schools to comply - even if taught alongside religious courses. Furthermore, if parents don’t want it taught to their kids that’s their decision.

Which gets to the heart of my point: what happened to free choice?

Whenever the government (with the aid of intellectual masters) acts as a “progressive” agent I always treat it with a healthy scepticism. After all, is this not a society and government that held “reasonable accommodations” hearings and still wages its own private and petty war against the English language? Never mind about the poor state of the French language and the difficulties with “integration” in our classes.

I wasn’t sure what to make of the course itself until UQAM Professor Micahel Schleiffer recently offered his defense of the course in the Montreal Gazette. Here are some excerpts and my middling thoughts:

“A battle is raging around the world, between the vast majority of people who strive for moderation and universal values that transcend culture and religion, against fanatics and extremists of all sorts. Attacks on Quebec’s new Ethics and Religious Cultures course are helping the cause of the extremists.”

Really? I didn’t realize having a differing opinion makes you an attacking extremist. My interpretation of this passage is the world is concretely divided between “open-minded free thinkers” and “close minded enslaved sloths”.

However, is it possible, some “open minded” individuals are against not the course itself but the fact it A) trumps the parents authority (an all-too disturbing trend in Canada) and B) removes free choice from the equation?

Wasn’t President Bush derided for his “us against them” depiction of global politics in 2001?

“This course, obligatory in all Quebec schools, introduces students to the major religions and is designed to help them to deal with ethical issues independently of specific religious instruction.”

There it is. That word. Obligatory. Why must everything be “compulsory” and “obligatory”. We’re like a bunch of psychopaths. Incidentally, I once dated a girl who was Zoastroarian. It didn’t work out since my rigid Catholicism kept getting in the way. Gee, I wish I had the ethics course to make me “tolerant”!

He goes on to assure us “relativism” will not pollute our students but then he says two conflicting things,”

“…As professors, we often have to confront the university student’s view that “it’s all a matter of opinion” or “it’s all relative…”

Fair enough. Although, one can argue it is vulnerable to relativism. Can you really teach this course from a neutral bias?

But then:

“That student or child might be looking, mistakenly, for the one “right” or “correct” answer, a quest inappropriate in the context of a discussion about moral values, choices, or dilemmas.”

I’m sure I’m missing something here. “Inappropriate”? Mistakenly”? Doesn’t this sound a lot like relativism in that there are “no absolutes”?

I don’t know but from what I’ve observed some people do have moral clarity (whether you like them or not) and stick by them.

Then he gets all rhetorically goofy:

“We want children to understand about honesty, respect, responsibility and co-operation, and to see the importance of personal virtues including consideration, generosity and kindness.”

Is he insinuating religious classes (who by the way are more universal than given credit for) or parents are incapable of imparting these values? Heck, even Sesame Street covered all these bases.

If, with this piece, Professor Schleiffer (and there were other parts of the article that are up for debate) was hoping to enlighten little extremists like me, I remain in the dark.

He shouldn’t feel bad. Tolerance is a tricky thing. It’s called a FREE SOCIETY.

The Liberals are claiming this is an attack ad by the Conservatives. Is it? Is it not a fact Michael Ignatieff lived abroad (the UK and U.S.) for about three decades? Or is it enough to just have a Canadian passport to lead this country to which point this video is misguided?

httpv://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TMiqfusRWM4

“It’s funny because it’s true.” Homer

Here’s an exercise I suggest. Take a person, put a bag over their heads and send them walking into the street.

What results is a good way to describe modern liberalism: aimless.

Unfair you say? Perhaps. But there’s no denying the philosophical “civil war” waged within its ranks has left the door open for liberal impostors to come in and set their own self-serving agendas. Those who choose to bail out, like this nauseating couple, come to Canada. Lucky us.

The internal confusion in the liberal frat house has corroded our collective conception of what constitutes traditional liberal tenets; you know, stuff like liberty, free markets, rule of law and (once upon a time) individualism. How? One way is to trample individual liberty with politics of coercion; to be controlled by the ever expanding nanny-state and special interest groups who set the tone of how liberalism evolves in the 21st century. The role of the individual is all but weeded out now.

Part of liberalism’s shtick is to challenge and question authority; to be a reflective conscience to the zeitgeist of our times. But engaging in empty rhetoric (“I’m moving to Iceland!”) and dubious conspiracy theories in the name of “liberalism” is, well, illiberal.

It has become an irritating habit for some Americans to threaten to leave their country because the people voted a certain way. Boo-hoo-hoo. To hang what ails American society on just the Republicans completely ignores the fact that liberals (Democrats) have been just as culpable in the process.

To be frank, if they’re that quick to make such proclamations (at least Robert Crumb made good on his threat and never came back) then maybe the United States doesn’t need people like them. Be part of the solution, not the problem.

Now that I think of it, why aren’t racist, KKK, ingrates from the Ozarks threatening to move to Canada now that Obama has been elected? Canada is already a basket case when it comes to defining its identity. Adding spoiled affluent Americans who throw hissy fits won’t help matters. In due time, our subsidized airwaves will be filled with Alex Jones/Martha Stewart hybrids spewing invectives about how Opus Dei and the CIA are conspiring to keep plaid and vanilla scented wax off store shelves.

Sips latte while shaking fist.

Meh. Someone has to step up to the plate in the liberal camp and reassert one of mankind’s (indeed, the bedrock of Western culture) most important political philosophical movements, no?

Certainly not members of ELITE.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3AKZQRsgvE

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5IDXVyhu0g&feature=related

We Canadian are fortunate enough to live in one of the most progressive nations on earth. But we too often  forget our racist past and present. Not unlike America or South Africa for that matter, too many of the marginalized in this country suffer an unspeakable existance, a kind of apartheid, I dare say.

httpv://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=OhobvsUuogI&feature=related