A New (U.S.) Order?

by jgr80

If you are age 46 or less and from the United States, you have never voted in a Presidential election that has not had a Bush or a Clinton running on the ticket.

With Creepy Hilldog out of the race, the 2008 Presidential election in the United States puts an end to two incredible dynasties. That is, if Barack doesn't choose her as his veep.

It's taken its effect on voters.

"Obama picked the right campaign slogan talking about change. I think the US is in desperate need of change not just in relation to who is running the country but also in rebuilding its identity on the world stage," says Liam Hyland, 31, of New York, NY.

Somehow two of the most dysfunctional families under the media spotlight continue to have a stranglehold on world affairs. I mean, clearly, they are full of integrity,they are honest, they are articulate, and honest.

In the early '70s, universal voting age in the U.S. was entrenched as 18 years old (it would have been interesting if it had been 8 years old).

If you were 15 years old in the last election without a Bush or a Clinton, that would be the youngest age you could be and still in the next election. Senior Bush first ran as veep to Reagan in 1980 (and won). So if you were 15 in 1977, today you would be 46. That's a long time with very little in the way of democratic choice. Heck, even if they had Blacks and Hispanics and Women and no Bushies or Clinties on the tickets before now, you still only have two parties.

The CIA estimates that the median age in the US is 36 point something. Get rid of all the youngins and that number jumps to around 43 ("youngins" denotes those aged under 15. Quite obviously, since we're talking about voting age, 18 would be a better number to use... but the CIA doesn't have that info as readily available. So there is a bit of an aberration here). The average voter in the United States doesn't know life without a Bush or a Clinton on the ticket-- without Bush or a Clinton at the head of the table.

This data is not scientific by any means, but by these statistics, it seems that the US is one of the most politically inexperienced countries in the world. This couldn't be exemplified any better than the last eight years under the current president... Junior Bush.

In Canada, for example, the CIA numbers suggest the median voting age is around 49. If you are 49 from Canada, you've been able to vote since around 1977. That's 8 federal elections, all of which had more than 2 parties-- and several new and viable parties emerging during that time, with plenty of leaders coming and going.

The U.S. has had 7 federal elections. Each controlled by two parties. All of them with a Bush or a Clinton.

The U.S. system is a recipe for political apathy (not that the constant change in Canada is a better recipe against apathy [although it's certainly better for democracy]). Everyone 46 and under has seen the same old same old every election. It's supposed to be democracy. Looks a lot like a shared monarchy.

People have been talking about change in the U.S. for a long time--say 12 years or so-- but haven't been changing the people they send there.

Bonne Annivairsaire, La Bolduc

by jgr80

Today is the birthday of Mary Travers, La Bolduc's. She would be 114 years old. I know of La Bolduc from this:


This was always one of my favorite Heritage Moments because I noticed she sings over an Irish pipe tune.

The gal had no formal musical training. She got the tunes from her dad who taught her the instruments he knew how to play by ear. She could never read music.

Despite my fondness of the vignette, there are quite a few gaping holes in this heritage minute. The song in the video was from her 3rd recording. By then, Mr. Beaudry already knew her despite the surprise on his face.

Her first two recordings flopped. Then a 3rd recording, which had "La Cuisiniere" as the main song, changed everything. It was released for the Christmas shopping season, and before the holidays were over, she was a household name in Quebec. In the middle of the depression, on her first tour, she earned $2000.

In 1994, she was honored with a stamp by Canada Post. My first "when-I-was-your-age" moment... Stamps were 43 cents back in 1994?!




These commercials were dangerous. I remember sitting in front of that TV for hours waiting for them to come on during The Racoons...


In stead of sitting in front of the TV, I shoulda been out in the driveway practicing my slapshot...


Hmm... all this talk about what I was watching when I was a kid and I still haven't said anything about the greatest ongoing television commercial theme song ever... the Hinterland Who's Who...


Sssssplendid

Important Day in Canadian History - Part 2: PEI

by jgr80

May 27th 1873 - The colony of PEI, which had been governing itself for over 100 years at this point since cutting administrative ties with Nova Scotia in 1769, votes to enter into Confederation. Six years after the day the four original provinces decided to huddle together, PEI was made the fifth province on July 1, 1873.

PEI was bankrupt in the years leading up to confederation, after running out of British funds from trying- quite obsequiously- to build a railroad. The government didn't want to join Canada, but needed to go somewhere or face ruin. The United States had sent envoys who parlayed with the Island, desperate for a beautiful Island territory. They would have to settle for Hawaii.

The British were tired of having to support such a tiny fraction of what remained in British North America and scaled back their finances.

And John A. MacDonald had no interest in American expansionism on both sides of Canadian soil.

MacDonald offered to buy up the railroad debt and financed the provincial government to rid itself of absentee landowners. MacDonald could have been one of the first people to use the phrase "I'm going to make him an offer he can't refuse." And considering how slow and drunk MacDonald was, it's likely he sounded like Don Corleone... only Scottish.

By no means am I a PEI history expert. This was something I noticed here and looked into a little bit. The reason I wanted to post this was because the government's telling of PEI history is pretty bad.

I've also been thinking of a way to get some Histor!ca vignettes into a post... and this overdubbed gem commemorates events that happened right around the same time, even if they are completely unrelated.

Hmm... I'm thinking of a drinking game.

Important Day in Canadian History.

by jgr80

Today, way back in 1879, stands as an important day in Canadian history. It was not, as far as I can tell, important to Canadian history before about 2001. Obviously, it wasn't important to the 2 3/4 year old country of Canada at the time. May 26th, 1879 is the day when Russia and England signed the Treaty of Gandamak, which set out the borders and officially recognized Afghanistan as a nation-state. That's right, two European countries decided where and what Afghanistan was.

...the Crusaders, the Mongols, the Turks, and even earlier-- the Middle East has always been a violent place. But before the British became financially involved with the Ottomans in the 1700s, the Middle East was fighting among themselves the same way Europeans and their descendants fought in revolutionary wars and the like.

In the 250 odd years since Britain became involved in the Middle East, Western powers have in some shape or form occupied Middle Eastern lands. Most grandparents in the Middle East don't have any stories to pass onto their grandchildren of better times or of hope or of anything different than being occupied in some form or another. They have always lived under worry, stress, and despair.

Until fairly recently, Western powers were always in the Middle East for Western interests. Maybe this isn't the case with Canadians in Afghanistan. Maybe a term NATO chooses not to use is 'occupation.' Either way, be it positive or negative, we, as a Western country, are in some manner perpetuating a grizzly 250 year tradition.

I recently met a serviceman who had just come back to Canada from Afghanistan. For this post, his name can be Jim (his name was not Jim). He was in Halifax at the time, a military city, and had not made his way back to his home province of Ontario, because of his duties to the military.

Over a few drinks, he explained to us (four of us in the room) his reasons, and what he believed were our military's reasons for being involved in this war. Our military is performing amazing humanitarian acts in a place that needs someone to come in and do these things. Jim told story after story of the help he and the other servicemen and women were doing, from building much needed infrastructure, adapting outdated education to the modern world, restoring law and order, and just creating a sense of normalcy.

Despite agreeing with everything Jim had to say about his experiences and beliefs about Afghanistan, there was a fundamental divide across the room between the half of the room that agreed that Canada should be in Afghanistan and the half of the room who believed the opposite.

Without getting into a long rant on the more complex idealogical beliefs circling in my head about the actions of our military... I think they are doing good things in Afghanistan, but that they should not be there, especially in the underfunded fashion that our government sends them there.

Further reading (from a variety of political backgrounds):
Michael Neumann for Counterpunch
Canada in Afghanistan: Top Ten Under-reported facts for Globalresearch.ca
Government of Canada: Rebuilding Afghanistan
CBC In Depth: Afghanistan
Thomas Walkom for TheStar.ca: Afghanistan was never Canada's War
The Globe & Mail: Canada's Mission in Afghanistan
History of Afghanistan from Wikipedia- I read a few books for a course in university about Afghan history. There is a disclaimer concerning the validity of the Wikipedia article, but it seems to be fairly accurate compared to the other things I've read.
Kevin Sites in Afghanistan