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.