Tuesday, October 19, 2010
WRAPPING UP SARAH'S VISIT
SEEKING PERSPECTIVE-- By standing back and trying to view the story of the Sarah Palin visit in context, I think we can reach some clear and fairly definite conclusions.
For one thing, we must consider that her visit in fact involved something not generally realized by the local populace--that is, it involved more than just one speech in Vancouver. That's right, she wasn't here only for the date we all heard about several weeks in advance, namely the $500-per-ticket speech she made to a posh gathering at the Vancouver Club, an event organized by the Bon Mot Book Club.
That second speech, in fact, might explain something to people (like me) who have been wondering why she'd give an American-style campaign speech outside her own country (in Vancouver) in the middle of a heated, crucial U.S. Congressional contest.
I know, the Bon Mot speech would have meant only a day or so off her native campaign trail, yet it might have been precious time lost for her beloved Tea Party, some of whose candidates are reportedly involved in tight races.
Her first speech, the Bon Mot one, was delivered on Wednesday evening, Oct. 13. And that second speech was made on the morning of Oct. 14--it was the keynote speech for the 2010 National Hardwood Lumber Association's Annual Convention and Exhibit Showcase at the Hyatt. I could not find any report on this event in the mainstream Vancouver dailies.
Now, while the hardwood association has some Canadian members, that "national" in the group's name means, on the whole, the nation of the United States of America. As with more than a few "national" business and industrial organizations, Canada kind of piggy-backs onto the membership rolls. Thus it's probable that a good majority of the hardwood membership would be American. Behind this conclusion is the fact that while Canada is a big producer of softwood lumber, it is not a significant producer of hardwood. On the other hand, the U.S. produces huge amounts of hardwood, much of which Canada imports.
My point is that Ms. Palin would be quite confident that in delivering her speech to the hardwood association, she would be heard by plenty of American ears among convention delegates, thus making her visit to Vancouver quite worthwhile in terms of U.S. electioneering.
THAT SPEECH WOULD ALSO HELP HER BANK ACCOUNT. Ms. Palin was paid $75,000 for the Bon Mot appearance, even though she was not just speaking but also promoting sales, to her profit, of her book, Going Rogue. (Talk about making money with both hands!)
Now, if the same speaking fee applied to the Hardwood Lumber speech, then in the space of two days in Vancouver she would have collected $150,000.
But wait--she was scheduled to jet out of here after her lumber speech on Oct. 14 to San Jose, California, where she made yet another speech that very day to the Liberty & Freedom Foundation. The word is that, while her speaking fee rate for the Bon Mot affair was $75,000, that fee was arranged some time ago, and her fee is now $100,000 per, because she has become such a big draw.
So, conceivably, in those two days, the 13th and 14th of October, she could have picked up a quarter of a million dollars for making three American campaign-style speeches. And there's even more--she also was scheduled to make a speech on Oct. 15 in Sacramento to "Perspectives, the Chamber of Commerce Speakers Forum."
All right, I hear some voices saying, but maybe the Sacramento thing was a true campaign event, where the politicians speak for free, being in self-and-party promotion mode. We then should not draw too many sweeping conclusions about precisely how much money she may make from her speeches. One, however, must remember as well that her speaking contracts require all expenses, from luxury hotels to super-deluxe air travel, plus lots of little perks, including even bottled water with bendable straws in her hotel suites.
But just from her Vancouver appearances, and the San Jose one, I think we can fairly conclude that this lady has one great serial gig going. We therefore have to address the question: How is it that Ms. Palin got a reputation for being some kind of airhead?
IT APPEARS SHE HAS BEEN UNDERRATED. Politically, she has certainly displayed flaws, and some bad ones, but one thing you have to give her is that she is bent on her objectives with a determination and a personal organizational ability to be envied, including how to make big bucks while the sun shines.
This is quite a turnaround for a politician whose entry on the big political stage became something of an embarrassment and failure for her party. Specifically, her stumbles as vice-presidential candidate, especially on international matters, proved an embarrassment to Republican candidate John McCain's 2008 presidential bid.
History records that Sarah Palin became the butt of humor for the late-night comics, and McCain lost that election badly. It would be hard to deny that he was hurt by his lack of judgment in selecting as running mate one who was not ready for the big leagues.
He might have lost anyway, given the burden he had to bear after eight years of Bush, Jr., but Ms. Palin and her failings probably did help add to the Obama landslide. And, so, McCain's political rise was over.
Ms. Palin's current fame comes, of course, from her move to the right of the usual conservative right, after the electoral debacle of 2008, and from her fervent embrace of the Tea Party. The thing is, America now seems ripe for a revival of the right, including the far right. And when the Congressional vote is held on Nov. 2, expectations are that her brand of Republicanism is going to be quite successful.
The meaning of that vote result will be a continued presence of, and growing fame for, Sarah Palin, as she continues her relentless bid for the Republican presidential nomination for the 2012 presidential contest. In the meantime, her speaking fees probably will inflate as she continues to show how true it can be that, when handed a lemon, one simply goes ahead and makes lemonade.
FINALLY, I MUST RETURN TO THE ONLY VANCOUVER SPEECH by Ms. Palin for which there has been made a record, because I have had requests to put something on this blog's record about it.
The Bon Mot speech was given little or no coverage by the two main Vancouver dailies. The Globe & Mail of Toronto, a sponsor of the Bon Mot club, was the only press allowed into the Oct. 13 event, which no doubt upset the two main Vancouver dailies, The Sun and The Province. The Globe had this favored position, one can only conclude, because it, as a corporation, happens to be a sponsor of the Bon Mot club. It may even have paid $500 for a ticket, something newspapers normally do not care to do--that is, pay to get in to cover any event.
The report in the B.C. edition of The Globe appeared on Oct. 15. A separate report was prepared for the 14th, but it did not appear in the B.C. edition of that date, although it was available online.
As far as the two Vancouver dailies were concerned, The Province had no record that I could find of Ms. Palin even being here on the 13th and 14th, and The Sun had no news story as such.
PERHAPS THE ONLY ONE AT THE SUN with the news sense to say something about the Palin speech, three days after it was delivered, was Malcolm Parry, whose lead item in his Town Talk column of Oct. 15 was a good eight-paragraph summary of the speech. He also ran a picture of a glowing Ms. Palin, flanked by the Bon Mot club founder, Leah Costello, and by one of the 180 attendees at the event, merchant banker David Rowntree.
The Sun and The Province may have decided to shun the event, news-wise, in light of The Globe's corporate "in" with the Bon Mot club, and in light of knowledge of Ms. Palin's own aversion to and avoidance of the press.
I am one, however, who would view such a decision as a news judgment error. In my experience, it is unusual to see a newspaper turn its back on an event just because a competitor may have a coverage advantage, especially when someone as famous, and as pivotal in U.S. politics as Sarah Palin comes into your circulation area.
When something like that happens, you try to show your readers and your competition, and the reluctant politician, that you are on the job. You show that even though the event tried to freeze you out, you got the story anyway, including the news favoritism part. In other words, you turn the tables.
THERE'S ANOTHER ANGLE AS WELL: What if the famous visiting politician falls ill, or is hurt in an accident? What if she says something really newsworthy? What if, in this case, another gaffe is made? Don't you as a newspaper want to be in the forefront of covering such things when they happen in your own territory? These would be the kind of stories that gain worldwide notice. The questions, I think, answer themselves.
Now back to a review of that speech. And because The Globe seems to have accepted the role of official news outlet for the event, I feel free to quote liberally from its reports, thank you.
The Globe report on the 14th, the one I found online, said Ms. Palin did deliver an American campaign-style speech. In it, said the paper, Ms. Palin spent most of the evening denouncing what she called the free-spending ways of the Obama administration. The paper's reporter, the very well-experienced Gary Mason, also quoted her as saying President Obama's current platform represented the "failed policies of a leftist politician."
What the U.S. government needed, she suggested, was a lot of budget slashing--and she would cut personal and corporate taxes at the same time. She spoke highly of the corporation-supportive policies of the late Ronald Reagan when he was in power, saying she'd do the same as he did; she'd let job-creation be the duty of business, which she held was better at it than government.
In a feature-ish type of followup story two days after the event, Mason gave a generally favorable review of Ms. Palin's appearance, declaring her to be more politically savvy and mature, showing none of the inclination to stumble and lack of preparedness she had displayed in her days of national political baptism.
Over all, said Mason, "Ms. Palin's speaking skills have greatly improved. In an hour on the stage there wasn't one 'you betcha.' She seemed like someone preparing for another campaign, one that will be waged on her terms this time." Meaning, not on McCain's terms.
PERSONALLY, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY DOUBT at all about her determination to go for the big nomination. It only remains for her to announce it. That likely will come some time after the Tea Party and other Republicans show significant gains on Nov. 2. As I suggested earlier, she'll ride those gains to more and more book promotions, more and more speaking contracts, and more and more extensive politicking.
Right now, my own view is that she probably will not get that presidential nomination. In the end, the real Republican conservatives won't have her.
But Ms. Palin is likely to remain a force in the Republican party--and might even be a candidate for a cabinet post in any future Republican administration. Yes, I'd say that, barring some major unforeseen development (such as a big Tea Party setback in the Nov. 2 U.S. elections), Sarah Palin will be around for quite a long time.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
COME THE REVOLUTION
GET READY FOR ITS QUEEN--Here are some quotations to contemplate in anticipation of the Oct. 13 visit to Vancouver by Republican-Tea Partyer Sarah Palin, U.S. history's most recent, unsuccessful, vice-presidential candidate:
"Don't retreat--reload!"
"Revive the revolution!"
"A revolution is brewing!"
All are quotes from what we are told is the mightiest, most prosperous, most successful democracy in the world. How, we might ask ourselves, could such thoughts be ringing through such a land?
The first quotation came from Ms. Palin, herself, who has of course in recent months filled the role of most famous enthusiast for the U.S. political phenomenon known as The Tea Party. One commentator, Margaret Wente in the Globe & Mail, Oct. 1, 2010, dubbed her "the de facto Queen of The Tea Party." (I have not been able to find any record of Ms. Palin directly refusing that title.)
The second and third quotes were produced under the banner of an outfit called The Republican Express. The "revive revolution" slogan is on one of their campaign buttons, priced at $1.99. The "revolution brewing" line is from another button, same price.
The Republican Express also markets T-shirts, one of which reads, avoiding revolution rhetoric: "FOXY NEWS." This label is right next to a smiling photo of Sarah Palin. (Question: Even though she does gigs for Fox News, is she really foxy? You tell me. See space for "comments" below.)
If you want one of those FOXY T-shirts, it will cost you $12.99 (U.S.).
THE QUESTION MANY CANADIANS WILL HAVE in the days leading up to the 13th, it seems to me, would be: Is there really armed rebellion brewing down there among our American cousins?
Leading figures in The Tea Party have been asked about real revolution--the kind with guns and everything. And a number of them have in reply sought to downplay that notion. I can't say I've seen a great many, though, who have given a definite, outright, emphatic, no-shilly-shally denial that any such thing could be promoted by them. Plus, we keep seeing those not-so-subtle suggestions coming from the rank-and-file of that political movement, as well as from their buttons and T-shirts and bumper stickers, and so on.
Actually, shortly after Ms. Palin came out with her "reload" cry, she caught a lot of flak over it, and quickly shifted ground, saying she meant "their arms are their votes." I suppose a lot of people heaved a sigh of relief when they heard that.
When The Tea Party began to become broadly known, my own thought was, well, the very name of that movement at bottom suggests the taking up of arms to overthrow repressive and oppressive government. And since the Obama administration took office--as the result of a fair democratic vote--haven't the Tea Partyers been declaring the Obama government to be beyond the pale for oppressiveness? Yes, that oppression coming mainly through tax changes and government spending not to their liking. So they talk about throwing off oppression, just as it was in the days following the original Boston tea party of 1773, with the American Revolutionary War, or War of Independence.
This suggested to me that one might well expect at some point to see actual shooting to "take back our country," a modern version, somewhere in the nation, of the shots heard 'round the world (in the Emerson phrase) at Lexington and Concord, Mass., in 1775. Is it any wonder, then, that many people have asked when the shooting will start in today's U.S.A.?
HOW WILL THE LOCAL NEWS MEDIA COVER SARAH?--A good question (before we go further into the Lexington-Concord event). I have this day discovered that the coverage isn't going to be easy for our news outlets. And this, I expect, could cause quite a dust-up between various news rooms around the Vancouver area, and beyond.
I am informed by the organizers of the event (first through e-mail questions and answers, then by follow-up phone call) that news people will not have much presence, except for the Globe & Mail.
In reply to my e-mail, which asked if the press would be present, the reply I received from Leah Çostello, founder of the Bon Mot Book Club which is staging the event, was: "There will be no media at the event - not because she (Ms. Palin) doesn't allow it. I just prefer keeping the events focused on the book club members/guests and their questions."
I also had asked in my e-mail if she had a sold-out event on her hands. Ms. Costello replied:
"All the original tickets have been sold, although I have three people who are now going to be out of town and so have their three tickets available to sell."
If those three tickets are sold, and I'd guess there's every likelihood they will be, then the event will have an audience of 180 dinner guests. Ms. Costello says she limited the ticket number to 180 because "that's about the size of the room." Tickets are $500 each. Ms Palin will receive a fee of $75,000 for her appearance at the Vancouver Club next Wednesday.
I asked in the e-mail if there will be a press conference by Ms. Palin, and Ms. Costello answered:
"No press conference that I know of, although I do have a list of requests for her agent to to decide on. Again, we've just invited her to stimulate discussion at our book club, not to make any announcements."
I was grateful to Ms. Costello for her assistance, she was pleasantly cooperative. But, after thinking over her e-mail answers, I had "just one more thing" to ask about. So I phoned her to ask if perhaps a transcript of the event might later be available. And as our conversation progressed, she said there might be a "podcast or the like" made available.
And then she mentioned that the Globe & Mail of Toronto will have access to the event, and I assumed from her remarks that there was some co-operative thing between the Globe and her company, in what I assumed might be in more of a corporate than a news way, but I can't be clear on that.
So you can see what I meant above when I suggested there would be quite a lot of heartburn among other news outlets, who all must be itching severely to get into that event.
But I'll leave that to them. They're the ones into the hard news, the "now" news, not me. I'm just a blogger, I've done all the news-hounding that I'm going to, that working life is behind me. Observing and commenting on the passing scene, that's the ticket for me. The organized news media can argue with Ms. Costello. To me she seems like a very nice person.
I suppose that if I want to get the details on Sarah Palin's speech I'll just have to buy a Globe & Mail the next day, hoping it will have been there for the news in it.
NEWS ALERT--We now insert information obtained Friday, Oct. 8, that may shed a slightly different, and perhaps more interesting, light on the question of press presence: A local Globe & Mail source has told me, regarding the Globe's planned presence at the event, that just buying a $500 ticket can get a reporter in. Which may explain why the Globe will be there--they simply bought a ticket. Whether the other news outlets have done the same remains to be seen. However, I would have thought Ms. Costello would have known they had, if she knew of the Globe's purchase, since practically all tickets had been sold when I spoke with her. I now await the event with even more baited breath than before. Ms. Costello's clear statement to me showed she did not want the press there, which perhaps means there's conflict ahead on that score. END NEWS ALERT.
My own view, I must say, is that the lack of a full news presence at the event might be a mistake, because, agree or disagree with Ms. Palin's views, people at large ought to be able to make their own judgments on what she says. Her views concerning Canada should be of interest to Canadians, since it seems she actually is a potential candidate for the U.S. presidency two years from now. And, like it or not, any president the U.S. gets is going to have a big influence on our country.
NOW FOR THAT HISTORY--The original tea party was not extremely revolutionary in what it did, 'way back then. When the colonists disguised as "Indians" boarded three tea-laden British East India ships in Boston Harbor that night, and dumped chests and bales of tea into the sea in opposition to a British tax on tea, destroying someone else's property was a fairly serious crime for that era--but it was a non-fatal, non-shooting protest.
History records that the Boston tea party took place on the night of Dec. 16, 1773--and it was just 16 months later that it was followed by shooting, on April 19, 1775, at Lexington and Concord, as British troops, going after two revolutionary leaders, exchanged fire with Minutemen militia--thus starting the bloody, bitter, cruel and long American Revolutionary War.
It was the night before that opening skirmish when Paul Revere and two or three others, having realized the Red Coats were on the march to Lexington, rode through the countryside warning fellow colonists that the British were coming.
Today, there's at least one militia group in the U.S. that has taken the name Minutemen.
Most people, including Canadians (even though it is a Canadian sport to criticize the U.S.), agree that the Revolutionary War was a necessary and valuable thing, and that the world was, in more ways than not, made a better place by this new country. (Although lots of people may have been changing their minds on that, over American foreign actions and policy over a number of years recently.)
BUT THE SITUATION OF THAT TIME was in no way parallel to the political circumstances of today's U.S.A., a country run on principles of democracy (despite those principles being subverted at times by the "bought politicians" we hear so much about). As practiced in the U.S., that democracy certainly is not perfect, but ultimately the voters, the citizens, do have a good deal of say in picking their leaders. Violence is not normally a part of the process by which Americans make up their governments.
Yes, that word "militia" nowadays has a way of of repeatedly coming up in the news. Armed, private, non-government militias are appearing in many places, and have been in recent years. Many of their members tend to espouse quite revolutionary views, perhaps more extremely than the Tea Partyers themselves.
Myself, I can't agree with the hard-right rhetoric of the Sarah Palins. Although she may try to appear more moderate than many of her fans, she still commands their support, she feeds their fires, especially when she says things like, "America is ready for another revolution."
To me, there is a menace underlying the Tea Party and its ideology.
So, Sarah Palin will be here to promote her "Going Rogue" book (and apparently has a new book coming out in a while). Well, no one can object to a famous person like Ms. Palin promoting her books--free speech lives in Canada at least as much as it does in the U.S. And no one can deny that she is an interesting person, though it's mainly because she's quite a bit off the beaten track in her conservatism.
The more she talks, the more we might understand her . . . if we ever come to learn much of what it may be that she tells her Vancouver audience.
I just hope that someone in the elite audience will ask her, during the question-and-answer session, for a definitive answer to the question: "What's the meaning of all this Tea Party talk about a real revolution?" And I hope we learn what that answer was.
"Don't retreat--reload!"
"Revive the revolution!"
"A revolution is brewing!"
All are quotes from what we are told is the mightiest, most prosperous, most successful democracy in the world. How, we might ask ourselves, could such thoughts be ringing through such a land?
The first quotation came from Ms. Palin, herself, who has of course in recent months filled the role of most famous enthusiast for the U.S. political phenomenon known as The Tea Party. One commentator, Margaret Wente in the Globe & Mail, Oct. 1, 2010, dubbed her "the de facto Queen of The Tea Party." (I have not been able to find any record of Ms. Palin directly refusing that title.)
The second and third quotes were produced under the banner of an outfit called The Republican Express. The "revive revolution" slogan is on one of their campaign buttons, priced at $1.99. The "revolution brewing" line is from another button, same price.
The Republican Express also markets T-shirts, one of which reads, avoiding revolution rhetoric: "FOXY NEWS." This label is right next to a smiling photo of Sarah Palin. (Question: Even though she does gigs for Fox News, is she really foxy? You tell me. See space for "comments" below.)
If you want one of those FOXY T-shirts, it will cost you $12.99 (U.S.).
THE QUESTION MANY CANADIANS WILL HAVE in the days leading up to the 13th, it seems to me, would be: Is there really armed rebellion brewing down there among our American cousins?
Leading figures in The Tea Party have been asked about real revolution--the kind with guns and everything. And a number of them have in reply sought to downplay that notion. I can't say I've seen a great many, though, who have given a definite, outright, emphatic, no-shilly-shally denial that any such thing could be promoted by them. Plus, we keep seeing those not-so-subtle suggestions coming from the rank-and-file of that political movement, as well as from their buttons and T-shirts and bumper stickers, and so on.
Actually, shortly after Ms. Palin came out with her "reload" cry, she caught a lot of flak over it, and quickly shifted ground, saying she meant "their arms are their votes." I suppose a lot of people heaved a sigh of relief when they heard that.
When The Tea Party began to become broadly known, my own thought was, well, the very name of that movement at bottom suggests the taking up of arms to overthrow repressive and oppressive government. And since the Obama administration took office--as the result of a fair democratic vote--haven't the Tea Partyers been declaring the Obama government to be beyond the pale for oppressiveness? Yes, that oppression coming mainly through tax changes and government spending not to their liking. So they talk about throwing off oppression, just as it was in the days following the original Boston tea party of 1773, with the American Revolutionary War, or War of Independence.
This suggested to me that one might well expect at some point to see actual shooting to "take back our country," a modern version, somewhere in the nation, of the shots heard 'round the world (in the Emerson phrase) at Lexington and Concord, Mass., in 1775. Is it any wonder, then, that many people have asked when the shooting will start in today's U.S.A.?
HOW WILL THE LOCAL NEWS MEDIA COVER SARAH?--A good question (before we go further into the Lexington-Concord event). I have this day discovered that the coverage isn't going to be easy for our news outlets. And this, I expect, could cause quite a dust-up between various news rooms around the Vancouver area, and beyond.
I am informed by the organizers of the event (first through e-mail questions and answers, then by follow-up phone call) that news people will not have much presence, except for the Globe & Mail.
In reply to my e-mail, which asked if the press would be present, the reply I received from Leah Çostello, founder of the Bon Mot Book Club which is staging the event, was: "There will be no media at the event - not because she (Ms. Palin) doesn't allow it. I just prefer keeping the events focused on the book club members/guests and their questions."
I also had asked in my e-mail if she had a sold-out event on her hands. Ms. Costello replied:
"All the original tickets have been sold, although I have three people who are now going to be out of town and so have their three tickets available to sell."
If those three tickets are sold, and I'd guess there's every likelihood they will be, then the event will have an audience of 180 dinner guests. Ms. Costello says she limited the ticket number to 180 because "that's about the size of the room." Tickets are $500 each. Ms Palin will receive a fee of $75,000 for her appearance at the Vancouver Club next Wednesday.
I asked in the e-mail if there will be a press conference by Ms. Palin, and Ms. Costello answered:
"No press conference that I know of, although I do have a list of requests for her agent to to decide on. Again, we've just invited her to stimulate discussion at our book club, not to make any announcements."
I was grateful to Ms. Costello for her assistance, she was pleasantly cooperative. But, after thinking over her e-mail answers, I had "just one more thing" to ask about. So I phoned her to ask if perhaps a transcript of the event might later be available. And as our conversation progressed, she said there might be a "podcast or the like" made available.
And then she mentioned that the Globe & Mail of Toronto will have access to the event, and I assumed from her remarks that there was some co-operative thing between the Globe and her company, in what I assumed might be in more of a corporate than a news way, but I can't be clear on that.
So you can see what I meant above when I suggested there would be quite a lot of heartburn among other news outlets, who all must be itching severely to get into that event.
But I'll leave that to them. They're the ones into the hard news, the "now" news, not me. I'm just a blogger, I've done all the news-hounding that I'm going to, that working life is behind me. Observing and commenting on the passing scene, that's the ticket for me. The organized news media can argue with Ms. Costello. To me she seems like a very nice person.
I suppose that if I want to get the details on Sarah Palin's speech I'll just have to buy a Globe & Mail the next day, hoping it will have been there for the news in it.
NEWS ALERT--We now insert information obtained Friday, Oct. 8, that may shed a slightly different, and perhaps more interesting, light on the question of press presence: A local Globe & Mail source has told me, regarding the Globe's planned presence at the event, that just buying a $500 ticket can get a reporter in. Which may explain why the Globe will be there--they simply bought a ticket. Whether the other news outlets have done the same remains to be seen. However, I would have thought Ms. Costello would have known they had, if she knew of the Globe's purchase, since practically all tickets had been sold when I spoke with her. I now await the event with even more baited breath than before. Ms. Costello's clear statement to me showed she did not want the press there, which perhaps means there's conflict ahead on that score. END NEWS ALERT.
My own view, I must say, is that the lack of a full news presence at the event might be a mistake, because, agree or disagree with Ms. Palin's views, people at large ought to be able to make their own judgments on what she says. Her views concerning Canada should be of interest to Canadians, since it seems she actually is a potential candidate for the U.S. presidency two years from now. And, like it or not, any president the U.S. gets is going to have a big influence on our country.
NOW FOR THAT HISTORY--The original tea party was not extremely revolutionary in what it did, 'way back then. When the colonists disguised as "Indians" boarded three tea-laden British East India ships in Boston Harbor that night, and dumped chests and bales of tea into the sea in opposition to a British tax on tea, destroying someone else's property was a fairly serious crime for that era--but it was a non-fatal, non-shooting protest.
History records that the Boston tea party took place on the night of Dec. 16, 1773--and it was just 16 months later that it was followed by shooting, on April 19, 1775, at Lexington and Concord, as British troops, going after two revolutionary leaders, exchanged fire with Minutemen militia--thus starting the bloody, bitter, cruel and long American Revolutionary War.
It was the night before that opening skirmish when Paul Revere and two or three others, having realized the Red Coats were on the march to Lexington, rode through the countryside warning fellow colonists that the British were coming.
Today, there's at least one militia group in the U.S. that has taken the name Minutemen.
Most people, including Canadians (even though it is a Canadian sport to criticize the U.S.), agree that the Revolutionary War was a necessary and valuable thing, and that the world was, in more ways than not, made a better place by this new country. (Although lots of people may have been changing their minds on that, over American foreign actions and policy over a number of years recently.)
BUT THE SITUATION OF THAT TIME was in no way parallel to the political circumstances of today's U.S.A., a country run on principles of democracy (despite those principles being subverted at times by the "bought politicians" we hear so much about). As practiced in the U.S., that democracy certainly is not perfect, but ultimately the voters, the citizens, do have a good deal of say in picking their leaders. Violence is not normally a part of the process by which Americans make up their governments.
Yes, that word "militia" nowadays has a way of of repeatedly coming up in the news. Armed, private, non-government militias are appearing in many places, and have been in recent years. Many of their members tend to espouse quite revolutionary views, perhaps more extremely than the Tea Partyers themselves.
Myself, I can't agree with the hard-right rhetoric of the Sarah Palins. Although she may try to appear more moderate than many of her fans, she still commands their support, she feeds their fires, especially when she says things like, "America is ready for another revolution."
To me, there is a menace underlying the Tea Party and its ideology.
So, Sarah Palin will be here to promote her "Going Rogue" book (and apparently has a new book coming out in a while). Well, no one can object to a famous person like Ms. Palin promoting her books--free speech lives in Canada at least as much as it does in the U.S. And no one can deny that she is an interesting person, though it's mainly because she's quite a bit off the beaten track in her conservatism.
The more she talks, the more we might understand her . . . if we ever come to learn much of what it may be that she tells her Vancouver audience.
I just hope that someone in the elite audience will ask her, during the question-and-answer session, for a definitive answer to the question: "What's the meaning of all this Tea Party talk about a real revolution?" And I hope we learn what that answer was.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)