Nixon, Agnew, Connally, Ford & Watergate

A few years ago I read Jules Witcover's Very Strange Bedfellows: The Short and Unhappy Marriage of Richard Nixon & Spiro Agnew.  The book was quite an intriguing read as it portrayed both Nixon and Agnew in a much more sympathetic light than the press ever had.  It didn't excuse them their transgressions but it did provide some insight into why they did the things they did.

I was born just a few weeks before the 1976 election in the waning months of Gerald Ford's presidency so I missed the Watergate scandal.  Witcover's book took me back to 1968 when Nixon chose Agnew as his VP and made me feel as if I'd actually been there and witnessed the political events of 1968-1974 firsthand.

Some interesting points that Witcover made:

1. Nixon regretted choosing Agnew as his running mate early into his presidency.  As such Agnew was largely kept out of the loop.  When Agnew wanted to meet with Nixon he often ended up having to settle for meeting with Haldemen and/or Ehrlichmann instead.  Agnew knew nothing of the Watergate break-in until the Woodward & Bernstein story broke.  He found out about it at the same time as the rest of the country.
2. Nixon wanted to drop Agnew from the ticket in 1972 and replace him with former Texas governor (and Democrat) John Connally on a cross-party ticket (the same John Connally who was injured in the Kennedy Assassination).  Incidentally Connally later switched parties and ran for president as a Republican in 1980 but was largely considered an "also-ran" candidate whose numbers didn't come close to Reagan or George H.W. Bush.
3. While Agnew knew he was being investigated for income tax evasion he felt he was innocent and that he would beat the charges.  Initially he was concerned and approached Nixon asking if the Watergate break-in was anything he should have to worry about.  Nixon reassured him that he shouldn't concern himself with it and that everything was under control.
4. Agnew wanted to fight the charges against him, he was willing to be impeached because he felt he'd be cleared in the impeachment hearings.  
5. Nixon wanted to resign long before he inevitably did.  The Watergate Scandal weighed heavily on him and he just wanted to put the whole mess behind him and get on with his life.  The trouble was Agnew was still the VP and Nixon felt the charges against him would bring him down.  He felt the last thing this country needed was 2 consecutive presidents brought down by scandal-- him resigning and Agnew likely being removed from office via impeachment.  Nixon only stuck around as long as he did to ensure that Agnew would not be the next president.
6. Nixon pressured Agnew to resign.  At first Agnew was adamantly against the idea.  He smelled blood and felt the Watergate Scandal would bring down Nixon making him the next president.  As the evidence against Agnew snowballed, Nixon was eventually able to convince Agnew to resign.  After Agnew's resignation the 2 men never spoke again.  Agnew finally forgave Nixon and attended his funeral in 1993.  As a sign of goodwill, Nixon's daughters in turn attended Agnew's funeral in 1996. 
7. Nixon's first choice to replace Agnew was John Connally.  He knew at that point he would be resigning and that Connally would inevitably be the next president.  However Connally had made a lot of enemies in his own party when he led a group called "Democrats for Nixon" in 1972.  Nixon adviser Alexander Haig advised him against appointing Connally as he felt that the senate confirmation hearings would be a long drawn out and largely controversial affair and that Congress would likely nix the appointment forcing Nixon to appoint someone else and having to go through the whole process all over again.  Nixon wanted out and wanted out bad.  Haig recommended the far less controversial Gerald Ford with the idea the confirmation hearings would be a mere formality and that he'd be approved without much fuss.

Being a student of (not to mention having a degree in) history and also being a fan of speculative fiction I do sometimes ponder the "what ifs."  What if Nixon had been brought down before Agnew had resigned?  What if Nixon had replaced Agnew on the ticket with John Connally in '72?  Would he have resigned sooner knowing his replacement was someone he actually liked as opposed to someone he viewed as a very regrettable mistake?  With Connally in line to take over, would Nixon have resigned soon enough to prevent his legacy from being tarnished as much as it was?  While Connally would likely have pardoned Nixon just as Ford did-- would the political fall-out from a pardon have been as bad if Nixon had resigned before his involvement in Watergate had been uncovered?  Let's look at this another way:

Nixon replaces Agnew on the '72 ticket with John Connally.  Because the ticket is bipartisan Nixon wins in a landslide (He defeated McGovern in a landslide anyway, but imagine how much more of a landslide it would have been with a cross-party ticket?) CREEP is never formed, the Watergate break-in never occurs.

OR

Connally replaces Agnew on the ticket in '72.  The Watergate break-in still occurs.  Connally is kept out of the loop (for very different reasons than Agnew was) and he finds out about it at the same time as the rest of the country.  Nixon resigns immediately saying something to the effect of "While I did not order the break-in, I was aware of it and I let it happen.  As president, that is unexcusable.  As such I will be resigning effective noon tomorrow at which point Vice President Connally will be sworn in."  I don't know a lot about John Connally-- at least not as far as his personality is concerned.  Would he have felt betrayed that Nixon kept him out of the loop?  Would he have felt relieved that in being kept out of the loop his reputation would have remained unsullied by the political fall-out associated witht he break-in?  If he had felt betrayed would he have pardoned Nixon the way Ford did or would he have let Nixon go on trial for his misdeeds?  Would the justice department even have pursued a trial if Nixon had resigned immediately or would they have considered his resignation from office in disgrace to be punishment enough and dropped the charges against him?

And here's another curveball-- If Gerry Ford had not pardoned Nixon would he have been elected in 1976 or would he still have lost to Carter?  Or if he'd pardoned Nixon but done so sooner would it have cost him the GOP nomination and put Ronald Reagan on the ticket in his place? 

There is a part of me that wishes I had been around for the spectacle of the Agnew vice presidency.  William Safire & Pat Buchanan wrote some brilliant speeches for Agnew.  All politics aside getting Agnew riled up and referring to the press as "nattering nabobs of negativity" would have been quite an amusing departure from otherwise dry political speeches.  And from what I've read Agnew was a considerably more adept public speaker than many of the subsequent vice presidents we've had.  I don't know how well or poorly he might have ended up executing the office of the presidency had a different turn of events landed him in the Oval Office. 

I think the closest we've come in recent history to an Agnewesque political figure is Rod Blagojevich.  Luckily, for our country (but unfortunately for Illinois) he was brought down before he was elevated to any political office at the federal level. 

Veteran's Day

In honor of Veteran's Day here are the lyrics to some of my favorite songs dedicated to war veterans:

I Was Only 19 (A Walk In the Light Green) - Redgum (about an ANZAC Vietnam vet)
Mum and Dad and Denny saw the passing-out parade at Puckapunyal
It was a long march from cadets.
The sixth battalion was the next to tour, and it was me who drew the card.
We did Canungra, Shoalwater before we left.

And Townsville lined the footpaths as we marched down to the quay
This clipping from the paper shows us young and strong and clean.
And there's me in my slouch hat with my SLR and greens.
God help me, I was only nineteen.

From Vung Tau, riding Chinooks, to the dust at Nui Dat
I'd been in and out of choppers now for months.
But we made our tents a home, VB and pinups on the lockers
And an Agent Orange sunset through the scrub.

And can you tell me, doctor, why I stil can't get to sleep?
The night-time's just a jungle dark and a barking M16?
And what's this rash that comes and goes, can you tell me what it means?
God help me, I was only ninteen.

A four week operation when each step could mean your last one on two legs
It was a war within yourself.
But you wouldn't let your mates down til they had you dusted off
So you closed your eyes and thought about something else.

Then someone yelled "Contact!" and the bloke behind me swore
We hooked in there for hours, then a Godalmighty roar
Frankie kicked a mine the day that mankind kicked the moon,
God help me, he was going home in June.

I can still see Frankie, drinking tinnies in the Grand Hotel
On a thirty-six hour rec leave in Vung Tau
And I can still hear Frankie, lying screaming in the jungle
Til the morphine came and killed the bloody row.

And the Anzac legends didn't mention mud and blood and tears
And the stories that my father told me never seemed quite real.
I caught some pieces in my back that I didn't even feel
God help me, I was only nineteen.

And can you tell me, doctor, why I still can't get to sleep?
And why the Channel Seven chopper chills me to my feet?
And what's this rash that comes and goes, can you tell me what it means?
God help me, I was only nineteen.


Khe Sanh - Cold Chisel (another song about the ANZAC Vietnam experience)

I left my heart to the sappers round Khe Sanh
And my soul was sold with my cigarettes to the blackmarket man
I've had the Vietnam cold turkey
From the ocean to the Silver City
And it's only other vets could understand

About the long forgotten dockside guarantees
How there were no V-day heroes in 1973
How we sailed into Sydney Harbour
Saw an old friend but couldn't kiss her
She was lined, and I was home to the lucky land

And she was like so many more from that time on
Their lives were all so empty, till they found their chosen one
And their legs were often open
But their minds were always closed
And their hearts were held in fast suburban chains
And the legal pads were yellow, hours long, paypacket lean
And the telex writers clattered where the gunships once had been
But the car parks made me jumpy
And I never stopped the dreams
Or the growing need for speed and novacaine

So I worked across the country end to end
Tried to find a place to settle down, where my mixed up life could mend
Held a job on an oil-rig
Flying choppers when I could
But the nightlife nearly drove me round the bend

And I've travelled round the world from year to year
And each one found me aimless, one more year the more for wear
And I've been back to South East Asia
But the answer sure ain't there
But I'm drifting north, to check things out again

You know the last plane out of Sydney's almost gone
Only seven flying hours, and I'll be landing in Hong Kong
There ain't nothing like the kisses
From a jaded Chinese princess
I'm gonna hit some Hong Kong mattress all night long

Well the last plane out of Sydney's almost gone
Yeah the last plane out of Sydney's almost gone
And it's really got me worried
I'm goin' nowhere and I'm in a hurry
And the last plane out of Sydney's almost gone


What's a Few Men - Hunters & Collectors (about the WWI - Battle of Galipoli)

The colonel said "these bodies stink wont someone come and drag them away"
We try to clean them up but they mow us down
And the English colonel looks the other way
Oh the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak
Well I ran for the trench but I had no time to speak
Well my heart said yes
But my head said no
When the English colonel said "its time to go"

He said "Whats a few men?"
He said "Whats a few men?"
He said "Whats a few men?"

The colonel's job is never done
So he declares timeout on Christmas Day
We held the enemy in our arms
And we ploughed each others dead into the clay
Well the Lord said death will be no longer
And all of these things will pass away
There will be no sorrow and there will be no pain
And we'll swap cigrettes on christmas day

Well my heart said yes
But my head said no
When the English colonel said "its time to go"

He said "Whats a few men?"
He said "Whats a few men?"
He said "Whats a few men?"

I realize that all 3 of those songs are Australian and are about the ANZAC soldiers, not American ones. This isn't a reflection of the sacrifices of Australian soldiers vs. that of American soldiers it's more a reflection of Aussie songwriters vs. American songwriters. There are some decent American songs about veterans (Springsteen's Born In the USA and Billy Joel's Goodnight Saigon and the late Harry Chapin's Mercenaries all come to mind) but I don't find those songs to pack the emotional wallop of the above songs.

Election 2008 Post-Mortem

Phew, it's finally over!

As many of you may have discerned from previous posts, my political views lean traditionally to the right of center. I'm an old-school, Goldwaterite/Reaganite Republican. Over the past eight years I've watched my party lose its way culminating in the royal trouncing of yesterday.

I knew going in, I wasn't going to vote for McCain. I've felt he was the wrong choice for this country since the primaries and he did nothing during the general election that would have caused me to change my mind.

The last time a Democrat won the presidency with over 50% of the vote was Jimmy Carter in 1976. Due to Ross Perot running in 1992 and 1996 the best Bill Clinton was ever able to do was a plurality of the vote. There were more people that voted against him than voted for him. Then there was the debacle of the 2000 election. I sincerely believe the polarization of this country started under Clinton and only grew under George W. Bush.

After their 2004 election defeat, the Democrats stepped back, re-grouped, changed their strategy and won back majorities in both houses of Congress in 2006 and now the presidency.

Now, now it's time for my party to do the same.

I still firmly believe the principles the Republican party were founded on were noble, just, and serve to outline the best direction for this country. The losses in 2006 and again yesterday are a resounding indictment of Republican campaign strategy and, to me, a sign that the leadership of the party lost their way and somewhere along the way forgot the founding principles that the party is SUPPOSED TO still stand for today.

To put it far more succinctly... I'll borrow from Cool Hand Luke:

"What we have here is failure to communicate."

Then again its hard to communicate the core principles of the party and illustrate why they're the best direction for the country when the leadership of the party has forgotten what those principles are. It also doesn't help that for far too long, the Republican party gave up the ghost on the African-American vote. For close to 100 years, the African-Americans that could vote, by and large did vote Republican. After all it was a Republican president, Lincoln, that issued the Emancipation Proclamation to free the slaves, and another Republican president, Eisenhower, that ordered the National Guard to go in and uphold the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown vs. the Board of Education. However, with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Lyndon Johnson was able to shift that voting bloc from the Republican to the Democratic party....

The Republican party has never put forth a legitimate or concerted effort to win back that voting bloc. That is to say, due far more to inaction than to anything they actually DID do, the Republican party has turned into a one race party. We are the party of Lincoln, we really ought to be ashamed! Far too much blood was spilled to preserve this union and unite this country for us to turn our back on this rich heritage of unity and inclusion in the Democratic process.

If yesterday's results were not a resounding wake-up call for the Republican party, I don't know what more it will take. I am still a Republican for the principles this party was founded on, here's to hoping that we find our way back to those principles... it's long overdue.

In the end, despite strong ideological differences, I voted for Barack Obama. In his speech last night, I felt redeemed that I'd made the right decision when Obama invoked Lincoln and reminded the country of the Republican party's noble roots of unity, individualism, and limited government. Because even if he doesn't necessarily agree with all the principles of the Republican party... Barack Obama seems to actually remember what those principles are... which is much more than I can say for much of the leadership of the Republican party.

----------------
Now playing: James Reyne - Stood Up
via FoxyTunes

Coin tosses

Back when he was still doing stand-up, Bill Cosby had a joke about historical coin tosses:

Some of the ones he mentioned:

British vs. Americans 1774
British lose the toss and are forced to wear bright red coats and march out in the open in straight lines. The Americans get to hide in the trees wearing clothes to best conceal their appearance as they practice guerilla hit and run battle tactics.

Custer vs. Sitting Bull 1876
Custer loses the coin toss. His army waits at the bottom of a hill as all the Indians in North America come stampeding over them.

I'd like to add:

French Canadians vs. Americans 1813
Americans lose the coin toss, French Canadians get support of Native Mohawks and 1,630 French Canadians and Mohawks sucessfully stave off an invading force of 4,000 Americans attempting to invade Canada at the Battle of Chateuguay on October 25, 1813. Over 150 years later Mayonaisse companies are still rejoicing in the boon in sales this victory later yielded in the Montreal area alone, let alone the rest of Quebec.

Billy Goat vs. Chicago Cubs 1945
In their first World Series appearance since 1908 the Chicago Cubs forbid a wealthy fan from bringing his Billy Goat to game 1 of the 1945 World Series. The owner of said Billy Goat puts a curse on the Cubs saying that not only would they not win the 1945 World Series, they'd never play in a World Series again... So far the Cubs appear to still be the losers.

Boy Scouts vs. Girl Scouts
Boy Scouts lose the toss, Girl Scouts get to sell a variety of tasty cookies... The Boy Scouts sell overpriced "gourmet" popcorn

George H. W. Bush vs. US Congress 1991
Bush loses the coin toss and is forced to raise taxes breaking a campaign promise leading to his squandering of a 90% approval rating and losing his re-election bid to Bill Clinton.

George Hamilton vs. Robert Duvall 1990
Duvall loses the toss and is replaced in the third and final Godfather installment by the perpetually grinning and tanned George Hamilton. It could be argued that those who paid to see this film also lost as they were subjected to a sub-par excuse for a sequel in what had otherwise been a brilliant series of films.

Sean Young vs. Michelle Pfeiffer 1990
Young loses the coin toss (and arguably her mind) and instead of playing Catwoman in Batman Returns is forced to humiliate herself by showing up dressed as Catwoman in a helicopter to tell Tim Burton that she IS Catwoman. Her career is yet to recover from this lost coin toss.

Al Gore vs. Katherine Harris 2000
Gore loses the coin toss and instead of delivering State of the Union addresses to the American people for the next four years he instead finds himself delivering State of the Union addresses to his bathroom mirror every morning as he shaves.

Democrats vs. Republicans 2008
Republicans lose the coin toss and are forced to run a crotchety old out of touch senator (as opposed to any one of a number of younger, better-spoken, and more "in touch" other candidates) for president against a younger, more appealing and photogenic (albeit inexperienced) Democratic challenger.

Freedom vs. Security

I had a history teacher in high school, easily one of the best teachers I've ever had. He really put things into perspective: People will always put safety before freedom. What good is freedom if you don't feel safe enough to exercise your freedoms?

So short, so succinct, and so spot on.

Right now we have a government that has either embellished the level of danger we're in OR has completely created an illusion of danger where none should exist (which of those 2 you believe determines how much of a 9/11 conspiracy theorist you are, I suppose) and as such has instituted one of the largest growths in the size of government since at least the 60s if not the 30s!

The government is supposed to be a SERVANT of the people, not a RULER of the people. Under the guise of being a PROTECTOR of the people (our federal parents, if you will), it's slowly but surely becoming a RULER of the people, something our founding fathers were trying to prevent.

Spinning in his Grave...

Many people, both Republican and Democrat, Conservative and Liberal consider Ronald Reagan the father of modern conservatism. If that be the case, than Arizona senator, Barry Goldwater must have been the Godfather of Modern Conservatism.

Given the gross expansion of the federal government under the Bush administration, I daresay that both Reagan and Goldwater are likely spinning in their graves.

State power, considered in the abstract, need not restrict freedom: but absolute state power always does. The legitimate functions of government are actually conductive to freedom. Maintaining internal order, keeping foreign foes at bay, administering
justice, removing obstacles to the free interchange of goods—the exercise of these powers makes it possible for men to follow their chosen pursuits with maximum freedom. But note that the very instrument by which these desirable ends are achieved can be the instrument for achieving undesirable ends—that government can, instead of extending freedom, restrict freedom. And note, secondly, that the “can” quickly becomes “will” the moment the holders of government power are left to their own devices. This is because of the corrupting influence of power, the natural tendency of men who possess some power to take unto themselves more power. The tendency leads eventually to the acquisition of all power—whether in the hands of one or many makes little difference to the freedom of those left on the outside.--from The Conscience of a Conservative by Barry M. Goldwater

Bozell (Goldwater's ghostwriter) goes on to mention a tale of Benjamin Franklin who when asked by a woman what the government had given her. Franklin's repsonse was, "a republic. If you can keep it."

The trouble is that we haven't kept it. Through a generally lax and loose interpretation of the Constitution, the power of the Federal government has grown so far out of control that we HAVEN'T kept it. And the more power we cede to the government the more we become servants of the government-- when the government is supposed to be the servant of the people, not the ruler of the people.

I realize that my fellow Americans want college educations, affordable health care, we all want to be able to retire and not have to be greeters at Wal-Mart when we're in our twilight years. But in asking our government to guarantee these things to us, in asking politicians to promise these things to us we're forfeiting our right to self-determination? If we grant our government the right to create a National Health Care system similar to that of England or Canada, are we also granting them the right to determine who is and isn't eligible to receive this health care?

Granting the government these powers is based on an assumption, a very dangerous and flawed assumption at that, that our government can and will act in our best interests. And maybe if the US Government had a history of doing just that, acting in our best interests, rather than acting in the best interests of lobbyists and special interests-- then maybe more Americans would be open to the idea of a federalized health care system.

Right now, not only is Bush's approval rating in the toilet-- the approval rating of the US Congress is actually LOWER than that of our president. Congress is Democratically controlled, the executive branch is Republican controlled. The point being is that government corruption and ineptitude knows no party lines-- despite the media's best efforts to paint the corruption and ineptitude of our government along party lines and to further foster the ever-growing divisiveness of our country.

Goldwater/Bozell go on to say:

The system of restraints has fallen into disrepair. The federal government has moved into every field in which it believes its services are needed. The state governments are either excluded from their rightful functions by federal preemption, or they are allowed to act at the sufferance of the federal government.
Inside the federal government both the executive and judicial branches have roamed far outside their constitutional boundary lines. And all of these things have come to pass without regard to the amendment procedures prescribed by Article V. The result is a Leviathan, a vast national authority out of touch with the people, and out of their control. This monolith of power is bounded only by the will of those who sit in high places.

You see, in the Civil War, the south was at least partially right. Rights not specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution fell to the individual states to determine. The fatal flaw the Confederacy made was in believing that a gross human rights violation such as slavery was within their "states rights" (human bondage is not now, nor has it ever been anyone's right-- individual, local, state, or federal for that matter) However today, the federal government has exercised an increasingly alarming amount of power over its citizenry "in our best interests." But, do you honestly believe the Federal government has any grasp whatsoever of what our best interests are?

And now we have 3 candidates remaining in the race for president and I'm not sure any of them would be prone to reduce the power of the federal government; to give the American people back what is rightfully ours-- the freedom to govern ourselves.

In short, I'm still waiting for the candidate described by Goldwater that is willing to say the following (or some semblance thereof):

“I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ‘needed’ before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ ‘interests,’ I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.”

Am I waiting in vain? Are my hopes too audacious?

On Christianity

With Easter and Passover fast approaching I tend to think about the differences between Catholicism, Protestantism, and Judaism. In a book I read awhile ago, in which most of the characters were Jewish, the main character asserted that there really wasn't much difference between Jews and Christians. The Jews are waiting for their Messiah, and the Christians are waiting for His return. We're all waiting.

But being a Christian, my interest tends to fall more on the differences between Catholics and Protestants. And Easter, more than any other time of year, the core of our differences are most apparent. Both Catholics and Protestants use a crucifix as a religious symbol. The difference between a Catholic crucifix and a Protestant crucifix is the presence of Jesus Christ. Jesus is present on the Catholic cross-- a reminder of the sacrifice he made for mankind, the very sacrifice the Christian faith is based upon. On the Protestant cross, Jesus is absent. The idea being that Jesus was resurrected on the third day. For Catholics the focus is on the crucifixion and the sacrifice. For Protestants the focus is on the resurrection and the promise of His return. I'm not saying either focus is necessarily right or wrong, good or bad. They're just different and that one difference is the very root of many of the other differences that exist between the two primary branches of the Christian faith. And I believe in understanding and appreciating that core difference once can better respect and appreciate the other differences between the two branches of the Christian faith.

Incidentally, this played into the exploration of the Americas in the sixteenth-eighteenth centuries. Let's take the French for example. The Hugenot explorers were Calvinists (or as they're called today Presbyterians), the core tenet of Calvinism is predestination. God was here before we were born, he'll be here after we're dead. All of our lives are predetermined by Him.
Therefore, the Hugenot explorers didn't try to convert any of the Natives to Christianity. They studied them from a more anthropological standpoint and did try to at least make their lives on Earth better. The Catholics however (not to mention some of the non-Calvinist Protestants) DID try to convert the natives to Christianity. Many of them saw their interaction with the Natives to be part of a Divine mission. They may not be able to do much to help them out in this life, but maybe they could at least save their souls (I know, through a 21st century lens, this appears rather elitist and possibly even pretentious, but keep in mind times were different then. Religion was much more intertwined into everyday life. In many cases the Church and State were not at all separated).

But back to the crux of things-- If you take the story of Christianity, how the religion came to be. It is a truly beautiful story. A man who loved the world so much he was willing to give his very life for it. He taught of not only love and tolerance but also forgiveness and a general sense of altruism. But then you look at what Christianity has turned into and, maybe it's just me, but I find it rather depressing. Where is the love? Where is the forgiveness? The tolerance? The altruism?

It seems that over the past 2000 years that message has been lost in the dogma, the sacraments, and all the other window dressing that organized religion has deemed necessary to add to Christianity. But this time of year, gives me hope... maybe in the message of resurrection, those who call themselves Christians in name (but who live lives that are from the examples which Christ taught) will forget about all the window dressing and remember the very beauty of the message the faith was founded on.

I know Christmas is more the time for wishes-- but that is my wish for Easter. Happy Easter and Happy Passover (to any of my Jewish friends who happen to stumble upon this post).

O Canada

In his most recent blog post, Aussie Sam de Brito, was espousing his man-love for Canadians. To which I just had to respond:

I grew up on the Canadian border (on the US side). So I got a lot of exposure to Canadian music, TV, and culture. Before the days of cable TV our television offerings included 3 American networks (CBS, ABC, and NBC), 3 Canadian networks (CBC, CTV, and CJOH), and 2 "superstations" out of Manhattan (WWOR and WPIX).

So, from a young age I was heavily exposed to Canadian culture. My grandparents had a summer cottage on the St. Lawrence River in Quebec. I love Canada-- as much as I love my own USA. It's something that few of my friends can understand... In fact only one of my friends truly understands and she's living in Montreal and plans on eventually getting dual citizenship.

Canada has a lot to offer-- polite people, beautiful scenery, fantastic wildlife, and one of the greatest sports known to man-- hockey.

And in Canada hockey is not merely a sport-- it is a religion, it's part of their national identity. When Maurice "The Rocket" Richard died they gave him a full state funeral! How many Cricket, Rugby, or Football players would Australia do that for? When he was suspended for punching a referee back in the 50s it literally incited riots in the city of Montreal... Those folks are hardcore! Oh and their beer is better than American beer. Give me a LaBatt's or Molson over a Budweiser, Coors, or Miller any day of the week!

And just a little addendum. I LOVE the Canadian accent. I know, I know... Canadians don't have an accent, we Americans do. ;-) My wife gets annoyed when I slip into it (which tends to happen whenever I call my parents as they still live right on the border). I also love Canadian currency, wildlife, hockey players, kids sledding, and of course the Queen! Absolutely brilliant!

I think a large part of our national identities comes largely from our origins. The birth of the American nation was born of violence, and as such that violence still exists in our culture today.... Whereas the Canadians, Aussies, and Kiwis are still subjects of the crown. Even if they have split from the British empire, when they did so, they did so peaceably. It wasn't a violent separation.

For further evidence look at the lyrics to our respective national anthems... The Star Spangled Banner is about how after a night of battle the flag was still standing:

O! say can you see by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner! Oh long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

O! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust.'
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Compared to O Canada:

O Canada!
Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.
With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!
From far and wide, O Canada,
We stand on guard for thee.
God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

O Canada! Where pines and maples grow,
Great prairies spread and Lordly rivers flow!
How dear to us thy broad domain,
From East to Western sea!
The land of hope for all who toil,
The true North strong and free!
God keep our land, glorious and free.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee!

O Canada! Beneath thy shining skies,
May Stalwart sons, and gentle maidens rise.
To keep thee steadfast thro' the years,
From East to Western sea.
Our own beloved native land,
Our true North strong and free!
God keep our land, glorious and free.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee!

Ruler supreme, who hearest humble prayer,
Hold our Dominion, in thy loving care
Help us to find, O God, in thee,
A lasting rich reward.
As waiting for the better day,
We ever stand on guard.
God keep our land, glorious and free.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee!

Other than "standing on guard for thee" there's no reference to violence and even that reference is one of defense, not offense. There are no bombs or rockets going off... And even in the lyrics to the 3 additional rarely sung verses there's still no mention of violence. The rest of the song is about the beautiful nature and wildlife of the country and protecting that nature and generally just a feel good love of country.

And for good measure let's discuss Advance Australia Fair (click on the link for a unique performance of this anthem):

Australians all let us rejoice,
For we are young and free;
We've golden soil and wealth for toil;
Our home is girt by sea;
Our land abounds in nature's gifts
Of beauty rich and rare;
In history's page, let every stage
Advance Australia Fair.
In joyful strains then let us sing,
Advance Australia Fair.

Beneath our radiant Southern Cross
We'll toil with hearts and hands;
To make this Commonwealth of ours
Renowned of all the lands;
For those who've come across the seas
We've boundless plains to share;
With courage let us all combine
To Advance Australia Fair.
In joyful strains then let us sing,
Advance Australia Fair.

There's an almost invitational quality to it. Inviting outsiders to come and share the country with those who are already there. Much like with The Star Spangled Banner and O Canada there are more verses that rarely get sung. But I feel the first 2 verses illustrate my point and help reinforce the contrast between the 3 anthems.

Don't get me wrong I love my country. This isn't about any country being any better or worse than any other. It's more a point of curiosity seeing how much of our national identities get represented by our national anthems and how telling those anthems are of what we are like as a people.

Quotes du jour

"Life is visceral rather than intellectual, and the most visceral practitioners of life are those who characterize themselves as intellectuals. Truth to them is 'revealed' rather than logically proved, and the principal infatuations of today revolve around the social sciences, those subjects which can accommodate any opinion and about which the most reckless conjecture cannot be discredited... Education is being redefined at the demand of the uneducated to suit the ideas of the uneducated. The student now goes to college to proclaim rather than to learn. The lessons of the past are ignored and obliterated in a contemporary antagonism known as the generation gap. A spirit of national masochism prevails, encouraged by an effete corps of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals."

Any guesses on who said that and when?

Politics

During election years I tend to grow more politically active, I listen to more talk radio, I read more political publications, I discuss politics with friends. This election year is no exception. Starting with Flying High a memoir of Barry Goldwater and the 1964 election, now reading Very Strange Bedfellows which is about the unusual pairing of Nixon and Agnew in the 1968 and 1972 elections, and I'll be wrapping up my political tri-fecta with The Age of Reagan by Sean Willentz.

And it's not just the political philosophy/ideology I enjoy-- it's also discussion of the political process that I find quite intriguing. That being said, I tend to avoid the cable news networks until after the polls close. As was seen in the 2004 election when all the speculation from the exit polling had Kerry winning the election-- speculation is just that. And I figure their guess is as good as mine. Exit polling is largely dependent on the pollsters and when they do their polling. The voting habits of conservative Republicans are considerably different than the voting habits of liberal Democrats. I also feel that exit polling is more a curse than a blessing. I believe the speculation and reports of the exit polls in 2004 are what helped get out the vote for Bush. Many conservatives who might not have otherwise voted-- upon hearing that Kerry was doing so well in the exit polls may very likely have gone out to vote for Bush. In that regard, the exit polling was likely a blessing for Bush.

This morning I was listening to one of the local talk radio shows Big John & Cisco In the Morning. They were interviewing former Clinton staffer, Dick Morris. It's no secret that Morris is no friend or fan of the Clinton's. Some may say he has an axe to grind-- but given his background he also offers a unique perspective into the "belly of the beast" so to speak. Morris did make one very valid point about a Hillary Clinton presidency. George Bush has expanded the powers of the president considerably in his 8 years in office. And while George Bush hasn't (at least Morris doesn't believe he has) abused those powers, Hillary certainly would. I'm not going to split hairs over whether or not Bush has abused those powers as that's beside the point. After hearing those remarks I asked myself-- "Which of the 3 remaining candidates would be most apt to abuse the powers of the presidency?" and without hesitation my answer was Hillary... Not Obama, not McCain. Morris mentioned that Hillary brings with her to the table a list of enemies... upon mentioning that, I thought to myself, "She sounds like another Nixon. The last thing this country needs is another Tricky Dick."

To extrapolate on that... Since 1989 either a Bush or a Clinton has occupied the White House... In that time this nation has grown increasingly more divided. Who is most apt to end that division and who is most apt to perpetuate it?

To close on a somewhat more somber note... I've been eligible to vote since 1994-- since then I'm yet to see a presidential candidate I've felt truly excited about and agree with. Barry Goldwater planted the seeds of modern conservatism, Reagan had the green thumb to make it grow... and then these Bush boys came in and mowed all that progress down with their newfangled "neo-conservatism" (which is quite an oxymoron for quite the pair of ox-like morons). Where is this generation's Goldwater or Reagan? Where is that candidate-- and I don't care about that candidate's gender or race or religion-- that can excite me, that can move me, that makes me feel GOOD about voting and gives me genuine HOPE for this country's future?

I think the Republicans actually HAD that guy... But they went and botched it. In the 2004 US Senate Race. A charismatic young Republican with movie star/JFK good looks and classic conservative ideals, Jack Ryan, won the Illinois Republican primary for the senate race. Much like his Democratic counterpart, Barack Obama, he had a positive energy about him. Unfortunately, his confidential divorce records were opened and it was discovered he propositioned his then wife (actress Jeri Ryan) for sex in a public place while they were married. Why his private divorce records were opened in the first place remains a mystery to me and many others. Why it was considered such a scandal that he propositioned someone he was actually married to at the time for sex remains and even greater mystery to me... But the end result... Ryan was asked to step down and the Illinois Republican party imported religious kook Alan Keyes from Maryland to run against Obama... Keyes of course lost in a landslide and suddenly Obama's star was on the rise... And Ryan's star had been shot down.

Who knows, had we respected his privacy-- this presidential race might look considerably different right now. Ryan may not have ended up defeating Obama, but I have no doubt the race would have been MUCH closer and Ryan likely would have made quite a name for himself. And had he lost the senate race he might have run for Illinois governor in 2006 against the incumbent moron Rod Blagoievich, a man he could have defeated quite handily grooming himself as a possible VP candidate to the eventual Republican nominee...

Political Youth Movement

Over the Thanksgiving holiday the wife & I watched Amazing Grace, which you may or may not know is the story of William Wilberforce the British MP who fought for over 20 years and to end the slave trade in the British Empire in 1807 (he was successful, btw).

What struck me about the movie wasn't so much Wilberforce, but his close friend William Pitt the Younger. At age 24 Pitt was (and remains) the youngest PM in Britain's history. A certain dialog in the film really stuck in my mind:

William Wilberforce: No one of our age has ever taken power.
Pitt the Younger: Which is why we're too young to realize certain things are impossible. Which is why we will do them anyway.

This got me to thinking... maybe the problem with politics today is that politicians are generally a lot who have been "in the game" for most of their lives already. They're comfortable in their circumstances and too jaded to try to accomplish anything of substance for fear it will "rock the boat" (and thus knock them out of said boat).

To put it another way, would the Vietnam Conflict have escalated into a War that killed over 50,000 Americans if we'd had a President still of draft-able age as we did under a President who was already in the twilight of his life (LBJ)? Wouldn't a president in his/her late twenties or early thirties have a much more vested interest in "saving" Social Security than any number of the current politicians who are approaching (or past) retirement age?

Humans are generally a selfish lot, and as such are most likely to act in self-interest. Wouldn't it make more sense to have a President of a younger generation who would have to live with the repercussions/results of his/her policies than a President with little or no regard for future generations because he/she won't be around when the fall-out of their policies come to pass?

Today, 24 would be/is a bit too young as most 24 year olds I know aren't mature enough to handle that kind of power, but are we Americans/Canadians/Aussies/whatever doing ourselves a horrible disservice by not considering a more youthful leader to serve our interests? I don't know what the laws/policies are of other nations, but I do know here in the states the youngest a person can be and run for President is 35... an age at which many of us have long since dispensed of our youthful idealism and vigor and are generally a bit too jaded to be proactive enough to serve not just our generation but the generations yet to come. Your thoughts?

Randomness

Pardon the history buff in me...

I just finished watching a mini-series (thank you Netflix) on Sally Hemings. For those of you not in the know, Hemings was a slave of Thomas Jefferson with whom he is rumored to have had intimate relations resulting in multiple children. Thanks to DNA testing in 1998, one of Hemings sons, Madison, was sired by 1 of 21 possible candidates (1 of which is/was Thomas Jefferson).

Initially I was skeptical of this long-standing historical rumor but the more I think about it the more it makes sense. You see, it's a good possibility that Sally Hemings was, by blood, the half-sister of Martha Wayles Skelton Jefferson (Thomas Jefferson's wife). If such is the case, there's a good chance Miss Hemings bore some physical resemblance to her older half-sister Martha (who died at age 39, leaving Thomas Jefferson a widower, in 1782). I could see where Jefferson might have been attracted to a woman who bore some resemblance to his late wife, even if she was one of his slaves. Although when she was coming of age, she was technically not one of his slaves but one of his servants. She was sent over to Paris to serve on Jefferson's kitchen staff at around age 16 when he was the US Ambassador to France, and in France slavery was illegal. She was technically free.

Also, in Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration of Independence he did specifically mention freedom of the slaves. All references to slavery were taken out of the Declaration prior to its final draft by the Southern delegates of the Continental Congress. So, despite his ownership of slaves (something Jefferson's conscience grappled with the rest of his life) his attitude toward slavery was somewhat liberal.

The social and religious climate of the early 19th century would never have allowed Jefferson to be President had it been proven that he had sired children with one of his slaves, and while it was rumored at the time, Jefferson repeatedly denied it due to some sense of duty to his country.

So what do YOU think? Did Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings have children together?