There's a lot to be said for individuality. Most notably, it allows us to be have opinions and get in arguments and point fingers at other people in a way that can never be fully appreciated by some hive mind race living on planet Krelmulon. Yep, individuality is a real party favourite and all around spiffy thing to be endowed with. And if you're also prone to devilry**, as I am, you cherish your individuality because it makes it possible for you to make fun at other peoples' expense.

But, I'm not gonna do that. You feel cheated, don't you? Well, truth be told,the somewhat 4th grade joke was at your expense instead of Microsoft or Ray Romano or George Bush. I led you to believe this was gonna be a typical rant. Sorry about that. Mostly. ;) You understand, these things happen***. This post is actually about music and individuality.

You don't hear a lot, in America, about the vast sea of Canadian bands out there. I guess America just has quite enough, thank you. Sure, the occassional Made-In-LA slot needs to be filled and sometimes they'll pick a Canuck body out of their star freezer, like Avril "what's that word mean?" Lavigne, but most of the Canadian bands out there slugging away don't show up on American music radar. You'd think that, now that the push-button future is upon us, that this would cease to be the case. And maybe it will eventually, but right now I haven't seen it (much. I can't say 'never').

Well, anyway, they do hear about those bands here (in addition to UK, Aussie and US bands). I guess maybe because both countries, Australia and Canada, are beholden to that elderly lady in the UK who appears on the local currency. Somewhere in her jewel encrusted gilded tacky little change purse there's a pawn token for each of these countries and, so it seems, they're sympatheitc to each others musical woes. Or something. All I know is I've seen mention of a lot of Canadian bands in the local music rags.

What's all this got to do with individuality? Hell, I don't know. I was just hoping it would all come together. I had no idea what I was gonna write when I started this. But there is a nugget of relevance in here. But it doesn't involve Canadian, it involves this dude called the 'Governor General' who kind of keeps an eye after the place for the old lady in the UK since it's kind of far for her to do it herself.

So Australia has a Prime Minister (or PM) who's pretty much like a President, but not. He's the head guy and then there are some houses of government who make fun of him or kiss his ass, depending on party. So the Governor General (or GG) keeps an eye out for the Queen and, should things go amiss, can step in at her behest and put things Royal and right. Sweet deal for him. Not much real work to do unless things go ass up. But if London gives the word, the GG can step in and take control. This sounds pretty screwed up to most of you who read my blog, I imagine.

Yes, Australia is a concern of the Crown. A jewel of the Monarchy. One of the last 'colonies' of the once dominant Union Jack****. There have been referendums on declaring soverignty, but they've failed so far. But, lo and behold, the GG has been accused of some heavy shit and stepped down. There's been more than a couple of whispers of re-igniting the debate over becoming a sovereign nation and leaving the fold of the Crown. Personally, I don't see that the country gets a whole lot out of being a commonwealth of the Empire. *shrug* The Brits, when it looked like Australia would be invaded, basically said 'hope you make it through, we're outta here' in WWII. Up and left em to be over-run by the ravenous Axis machine. I dunno. As an outsider, and an American-born one at that, it seems to me that the Aussie people would be hell bent on taking the lot for themselves. But for some reason they have held on to their ties to Queen and Country. Maybe it's too much a part of their national identity. I don't know.

I do know a lot of Aussies want to declare sovereignty, but it looks like it may be a while... unless this nastiness with the GG brings it to a head. The argument being that the PM could have taken a more active role in handling the issue if the GG wasn't the Queen's man. Not that he'd have been there at all, but you get the idea, right? Anyway, there's a lot to be said for individuality. Maybe, in the next 5 or 10 years, we'll see the Aussie people reach out for their own individuality and finally leave the Union Jack to the history books. That's pretty much where I'd place my money. The chances of Sarah and I still being here to see it are sort of low considering the way my wifey feels about the country (she pretty much doesn't like it at all), but when the day come I'll watch it on TV and smile and probably make some very cliched sitcom exclamation. But I'll be proud of these people. I think they deserve and need their individuality. No one understands who they are (and, by extension, they're sometimes not too clear on it either) and being under the thumb of a Governor General and a pawn of the Crown doesn't help that one bit.

OK, I guess I'm done. Seeya.

* - Props to Andy Ihnatko. It's his phrase. I've been remiss in my reading of everyone's favourite "elf-employed" Mac fanatic (he may also qualify for description by another word that ends in "natic", but that's for a trained professional to determine. Only his Dominoes guy knows for sure.).

** - Mischief. Not actual 'being a devil' or any backyard teenage 'speaking latin' satanic stuff.

*** - Most often when initiated by me, but who's keeping a tally?

**** - Once upon a time, there was a prideful phrase that went "The Sun never sets on the Union Jack". Great Britain had holdings all over the globe.