COULD THERE BE MORE FUKUSHIMAS? YOU MIGHT NOT WANT TO BET AGAINST IT . . .

  
    
     HAS HUMANITY DUG ITSELF INTO A NUCLEAR PIT with little or no way out? Is the day of that great advance in physics, nuclear-powered electricity, nearing its end? Are many nuclear scientists, after all, not exactly the brilliant brains we once thought they were?

     Many such questions are being framed in the minds of people everywhere in the aftermath of Japan's nuclear disaster -- which still threatens to become a catastrophe. These are eminently worthwhile questions,  I believe most people will agree, and must be debated.

     Although it could be that politicians and the nuclear power industry will not do much more than launch vast public relations campaigns aimed at calming public concerns, the pressures created by those concerns, we must believe, will have to have at least some influence on future approaches to nuclear power development.

      I'd expect Canadians above all are worried about the status of nuclear generation of electricity, because Canada is a huge player in the field of nuclear electricity production, and has been for nearly half a century. Canada has 18 operable reactors, most of them in Ontario, according to the World Nuclear Association (WNA), which represents the nuclear industry.

     The exact number of "operable" reactors is hard to pin down, since reactors require shutdowns from time to time for maintenance -- or repair of leaks, as with one in Pickering, Ontario! It seems the total for Canada could be as much as 22 if all are operating at once. In addition, Canada has two reactors under construction, three are planned, and three more are proposed, says the WNA in a March 2, 2011, listing of worldwide reactor distribution.

     CANADA'S ROLE IN THE NUCLEAR WORLD has involved renunciation of any nuclear weapons development or use. We have determined that no uranium exported from Canada can ever be used in the production of nuclear weapons, and insist on that before issuing export permits.

     Whether that prohibition is totally effective, I cannot say; one might expect some of the exports could possibly, somehow, get diverted to nefarious use. At any rate, we intend to be pure, we will not add to the already thousands of thermonuclear bombs that exist in, and are a grave hazard to, the world, and that's it.  Canada will use the atom for peace, we will concentrate instead on research, and build and use nuclear reactors for electricity production. All very peaceful, right? -- all very nicely-nicely Canadian, yes? Well, now we know it's not exactly quite like that.

     Now we know -- as I heard one unidentified nuclear-power critic say on TV the other day -- that probably there is no such thing as a "fail-safe" nuclear power reactor, anywhere. If Three Mile Island in The United States, in 1979, and Chernobyl, in Ukraine, in 1986, were not enough in the way of disasters, then (many people are saying) the last straw has now been presented to the world by Japan.

      The nuclear power industry, quite naturally in its own interests, is arguing that we shouldn't panic, that there are specific elements in the Japanese disaster which suggest that we shouldn't blame the event on what is called the inherent instability of nuclear reactors. Instead, they say, we ought to blame the combination of natural disasters -- the huge earthquake and subsequent tsunami; the true cause of the horrible event.

    The argument then develops into: Yes, the real fault lies in nature's unpredictability and, admittedly, in the human error that led, to begin with, to the construction of the Fukushima reactors in an earthquake-prone nation. There we have it -- it's human error.

    Hmm. Let's see -- wasn't human error a factor in Three Mile Island? And, oh, yes, it was a major element in the Chernobyl catastrophe. But we must ponder this too: Japan, again according to the World Nuclear Association list, has a total of 55 nuclear power reactors, has two under construction, plans 12 more, and is thinking of building one more. How can this make sense, now?

    ARE WE TO TAKE FROM THIS POINTING TO HUMAN ERROR the idea that we mustn't fault the nuclear-reactor industry, or the nuclear power plant owners and operators? Well, a huge part of the multi-billion-dollar nuclear power industry (and I mean mega billions), including plant designers and equipment providers (like the huge General Electric Corp.), has private ownership, and operation, at times under lax government regulation. And isn't it true that private industry must aim at maximum profit? Does this not mean the possibility of cutting corners, economically, in operation and oversight, and thus, perhaps, fewer carefully applied safety measures against extremely dangerous radiation? Some say yes, some say no. I'm personally inclined to say yes.

     This means the public is forced to accept risks that should be unacceptable. Anti-nuclear groups, like Greenpeace and the Sierra Club, have called for an end to heavy government subsidization and tax breaks for the nuclear power industry, claiming that the industry could not survive (thankfully, they would say) without these breaks.

     They also have made this point: "Canadian reactors produced about 35,000 tonnes of high level radioactive waste (spent fuel) by the end of 2000. Despite a 10-year study, and the expenditure of $700 million for research, a national environmental assessment in 1998 failed to support the nuclear industry's proposal for deep-rock storage of radioactive waste. The waste will be hazardous for hundreds of thousands of years."

     See what I mean about getting into the nuclear reactor pit and not being able to escape from it? You can build and operate these things, if you have the unbelievably high sums required, but the problem of radioactive-waste disposal is a great challenge. You bury it, or you dump it in the sea or some other body of water -- yet those methods, the critics say, are not foolproof. Hundreds of thousands of years of hazard, indeed!

     Organizations like Greenpeace have been on top of the inherent dangers in nuclear reactors for a long time. Eleven years ago they and the Sierra Club argued for shifting from such expensive and dangerous ways of producing power to more environmentally friendly ways, such as wind power and solar power, and more efficient use and management of hydro-power. They refer to Canada's nuclear power industry as representing 50 years of failure, and emphatically point to the problems the industry had by then -- eleven years ago -- experienced, outlining a list of "devastating accidents" that had plagued Canadian CANDU reactors. (In recalling the situation back then, they say today that little has changed in the interim.)

     ONE OF THOSE DISASTROUS ACCIDENTS threatened a horror at Pickering Reactor #2 in 1994. That event started with a major-loss-of-coolant accident that spilled 185 tonnes of heavy water. "The emergency core cooling system was used for the first time ever at a CANDU reactor to prevent a meltdown," say Greenpeace and Sierra. (My italics.)
      
     I wonder whether a man like the prospector-miner Gilbert Labine, who made Canada's first discovery of economic uranium in 1930, ever dreamed of such scenarios when he was mucking about in the region of Great Bear Lake, Northwest Territories? I'd guess not, but as things turned out he goes down in history as the man who turned Canada onto its modern nuclear path. The Great Bear Lake is where he discovered the Port Radium deposit. As the Canadian Encyclopedia notes, it was originally exploited for its radium content.

     The exploration for this substance picked up pace, with other discoveries, in the 40s, of big deposits  in the area of what is now called Uranium City, northern Saskatchewan, and, in the 50s, in the Elliot Lake region of northern Ontario.

     So if you think Canada is not a major nuclear power, better think again. We not only have lots of nuclear reactors (none in this Blog's province of British Columbia, I'm thankful to be able to report) -- we  also produce some 22 per cent of the world's uranium, the key element in nuclear reactions. We are in second place among leading uranium producers; we were first for a long time, until overtaken in 2009 by Kazakhstan.

     We can say, however, that without Canada's production, the world likely would not be as nuclear-reactor infested as it is. Our uranium production businesses have a stake in the use of their product in the rest of the world's building and operating of nuclear power reactors. Contrary to popular belief, then, Canada's hands would not seem to be so clean when it comes to nuclear energy -- at least to those worried about proliferation of power-producing reactors.

     What I'm trying to say in all of this alarm over nuclear reactors is, I suppose, that while the nuclear focus right now is upon Japan, and will be no doubt for at least several weeks, and perhaps much longer, we should not limit our nuclear thinking to Japan (or, for that matter, to Canada). We should be thinking about the entire globe's nuclear reactor involvement. There's lots of it, and there are big plans for expansion.

     I DON'T WISH TO UPSET PEOPLE,  but facts are facts, and I do think everyone should be alerted to the following information from the WNA. (Note that the following is completely separate from the world's manufacture of thousands of thermonuclear weapons. It more than underlines the reality that we live in a very heavily nuclearized world, and with all of its accompanying dangers.)

     Our Earth has upon its surface a total of about 440 operable civilian nuclear power reactors. (The number was 443, until those earthquake-tsunami problems occurred in Japan and shut down at least three  reactors, with three more turned off, meaning all six of Fukushima's reactor units out of action.)

     The nation with the largest number of operable reactors is, no surprise, The United States of America, with 104. The WNA says the U.S. also has one reactor under construction, nine planned, and 23 proposed. All of these figures and plans, I must note again, were on the WNA list prepared as of March 2, a week before the Fukushima blowup; since Fukushima, the issue of nuclear reactor expansion has grown quickly into something politicians in the U.S., and everywhere else, are finding they now have to look at with great care.

     In second place, with 58 reactors, is France, with one under construction, one planned, and one proposed.

     No. 3, as mentioned earlier, is Japan, with 55.

     Russia is next, at 32, with 10 under construction, followed by South Korea at 21. India has 20 (with five under construction, 18 planned and 40 proposed), the UK has 19, and Canada is next with its 18, closely followed by Germany at 17. China has 13 reactors, with 27 under construction, another 50 planned -- and a breathtaking 110 proposed.

     Ukraine has 15 operable reactors, Sweden has 10.

     And we must not forget Iran. It is listed as having one reactor under construction, two planned, and one proposed.

     In total, the World Nuclear Association lists 47 nations as having either operable nuclear reactors, or  reactors under construction, definite plans for reactors, or simply proposing some.

     The most telling statistic of all, and let me shout it this time, is the fact that the world has some FOUR HUNDRED AND FORTY operable nuclear reactors. And worldwide there are also 62 under construction, 158 planned, and -- 324 proposed! Whew! This definitely sounds like a nuclear-reactor race to me.

     How many of those reactors now operating are likely to have really big problems, and I mean really BIG  problems (since practically all of them have "little" problems from time to time) -- that is, big,  fatal  problems like those at the complex known as Fukushima?

     I'm not sure I'm qualified to say. But one doesn't have to be a nuclear scientist to toy with the idea that-- well, perhaps using the nuclear scientist allusion isn't such a great choice right now . . . so I'll just say that one doesn't have to be excessively bright to regard the nuclear power reactor as terribly and tragically problematic for the world.

     WE'VE JUST GOT TO BELIEVE, IT SEEMS, that the headlong charge to a greater nuclear reactor future will moderate. But will the politicians and nuclear industry mouthpieces give us much more than talk?  Will anything really change? Who can say?

     The outlook isn't promising. There was a story in the paper just today, with the headline, "Ontario to spend $33 billion on reactors." The Ontario energy minister, who made the announcement, was quoted as also saying that, of course, all kinds of public input will be sought on the construction of two nuclear reactors at the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station in Clarington, Ont., about 85 kilometres east of Toronto. The new reactors will replace aging nuclear plants, the story said. Mindful of the Japanese disaster, he assured everyone that Ontario's nuclear plants are and will continue to be terribly safe.

     So the prospects for cranking back nuclear things don't seem good.  Perhaps our only answer is that most of us have to trust, have faith; we have to believe that the nuclear reactor world will reconsider its activities, and phase itself out, and sooner rather than later.

     As crazy as it might appear, I'll say it again: We've got to believe -- but back up that belief through application of pressure from the public on the dim-sighted (and/or misguided) politicians.

     After all, we can argue that a lot of nuclear scientists truly do accept their responsibilities. In the past they've sounded constant alarms over thermonuclear weapons and the need to eliminate them because those weapons are absolutely inhumane and genocidal by their very nature. The nuclear-war clock is winding down, or up, at least some disarmament is afoot, etc. Quite a few nuclear scientists seem to be stepping forward now in the current reactor controversy.

     Also encouraging is the fact that respected and responsible public organs like the Los Angeles Times are more and more in the fray. It recently ran an editorial on nuclear reactors, some of which merits repeating (which this area's Vancouver Sun has done, and which I now also will quote, because The Times spoke very much to the point).

      The LA Times, commenting on Fukushima, took a dim editorial view of nuclear reactor expansion, saying that such power plants "are so expensive, and their risks so extreme, that private investors are reluctant to fund them, even with huge government subsidies and loan guarantees."

     The paper said plans to build a "national repository" for waste in Nevada had been shelved, "meaning radioactive waste is being stockpiled at individual plants in a way that is unsustainable. And then there's the threat of a Japan-type disaster."

     The LA Times said the U.S. gets 20 per cent of its electricity from nuclear power plants (the like figure for Canada, I should note, is about 16 per cent).

     Concludes The Times: "There are more cost-effective ways of weaning the country off climate-warming fossil fuels, namely improved energy efficiency and more renewable power. In the cost-benefit analysis, nuclear doesn't add up."

     Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and all Canadians concerned about the proliferation of nuclear reactors will agree with that.


                                           ---------------

DO WE REALLY WANT EQUALITY FOR WOMEN?

  
     
     A CRUCIAL QUESTION -- Well, the One Hundredth International Women's Day has come and gone, and now we can expect renewed vitality and commitment in campaigns, worldwide, for advances in women's equality.

     Or can we?

     I raise this question because, in reports on all of the discussions and celebrations surrounding The Big Day that I've studied, I have failed to detect a single mention of the one huge forward step that would truly put the campaign for equal rights on a fast track to success.

     And that big step would provide the framework for overcoming the most serious of the discriminations against women -- including such matters as the wage disparity between men's and women's pay, and the "glass ceiling" holding down women's progress up the promotion ladder.

     That step, friends, involves nothing more than a relatively simple revision of laws governing political representation. It would work any place in the world where there is representative government, and I believe it also would provide hope and inspiration for women in those benighted parts of the world where women are treated as property, as virtual slaves.

     Now, I'm not suggesting the general question of women's involvement in the political process has been ignored during the International Women's Day festivities. Certainly there have been many references -- on TV, radio, newspapers -- to the fact of under-representation of women in the national, regional, and local law-making bodies of democratic nations, not to mention in those of near- and non-democracies of the world.

     Unfortunately, about all we get in response to the awareness of female under-representation is a kind of hand-wringing, plus mutterings about how we must urge our political parties and organizations to take more notice of the need for greater participation of women in politics and elections, and more nomination of women candidates. And, so, the status remains quo, and women, by and large, fail to be better represented. (But I must note here that the emergence of the new Liberal leader in B.C., the soon-to-be-premier Christy Clark, is a good sign; I hope she has an opportunity to examine my proposal, and perhaps be inclined to act on it. I think its adoption might just win her many, many women's votes.)

     But the status quo is why I am writing this piece. To some, the proposal I am going to outline may sound familiar, and that's because I (a man with three daughters and three granddaughters) have a deep interest in women's rights (as was my Shirley, the late, much loved mother of my daughters); it may also sound familiar because I have written about the subject before.



     AND NOW -- HERE'S OUR SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM:  Let's take the province of British Columbia, Canada, for our model in showing how the reforms I am advocating would work.

     The way it goes now in the election of a provincial government is the election of one Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) in each constituency (also termed a riding), with candidates nominated by the party association (or politically independent group) wishing representation in the Legislature. When all the votes are counted in each riding, the candidate earning the most votes wins the seat. And the party with the greatest number of seats forms a government.

     As it now happens, male candidates usually outnumber female candidates, and in any event the number of MLAs who are male have always outnumbered the female MLAs. Thus, we get a "male-dominated" legislature (or city council, or House of Commons in Ottawa), with intermittent complaints about male domination of our democracy, and, when something like International Women's Day comes along, many, many well-expressed complaints of the same character. The cliche goes on and on: "We must have more women candidates, to redress the balance."

     Well, just saying such things hasn't achieved much, if anything. What I suggest is that we make one very simple amendment in our electoral law: We make space for two MLAs from each riding -- not just one, but two.

     One seat would go to a male candidate, from whatever number of male candidates were in the running for that male seat; and the other seat would be for a female candidate, whatever number won nominations to represent their party or independent group for the female seat.



    AND -- PRESTO! -- EQUALITY OF REPRESENTATION for women has arrived. One woman MLA for each constituency, one man MLA for each constituency. Think of it -- from then on, not a law would be passed, not a policy would be adopted, not a budget would be passed, not a single inquiry would be launched, without the interests and rights of women being well considered.

     I first made this proposal about seven years ago, after having read that some aboriginal groups in Canada's north had attempted to introduce such a system in their selection of representatives in their culture. The idea lost narrowly, but mostly, I would suggest, because of a male-dominant society there. My own view is that it's a great idea and our democracy would be greatly strengthened were we to adopt it.

     There was a citizen's assembly on B.C. electoral reform about seven years ago. The provincial government under Gordon Campbell set it up, on a model written by the former B.C. Liberal Leader Gordon Gibson. The makeup of the assembly was required to have equal representation of men and women, and it did.

     That knowledge encouraged me, so I sent in my proposal, crediting it to the Inuit, and gave my arguments in favor of the reform. It was accepted by the assembly secretariat as a formal submission to be copied and circulated among the full membership of 160 assembly appointees for their consideration.

     I was disappointed when the inquiry's report finally came down. It had no reference whatever to the proposal I had made.



     THERE IS NO DOUBT, THOUGH:  I intend to keep pressing on this subject, until I am shown good reason as to why it is a faulty idea, having received no such arguments as yet. One mild criticism I have heard is that some women might take the idea of legislated equality of gender representation as unacceptable tokenism. I believe the motivation for such an attitude might come from the idea that women want to "make it on my own merits, I don't need someone to legislate or decree my voting rights." And so on.

     My answer to that is the following:

     Is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms not a piece of legislation? Does it not demand and insist on equality of rights for the sexes? And do you not accept that Charter as a positive, proper and absolutely necessary part of our Citizen Rights? Of course you do.

     Well, what I say is that equality of representation of men and women in our democratic electoral bodies is not a form of tokenism, but rather is also a positive, proper and absolutely necessary part of our electoral -- our citizen -- rights.

      So step forward, citizens, put the heat on the political powers-that-be, and demand this important reform.    

GETTING A GRIP ON THE EGYPTIAN DRAMA

  
     
     OH, TO BE AN EGYPTOLOGIST -- I know, I'm using the term "Egyptologist" here in not quite the right context. I am aware that an Egyptologist is someone with expert knowledge of the Pyramids,  the Pharaohs, Egyptian antiquities, Egypt's place in the beginnings of civilization, and of ancient Egyptian history, including Biblical. In short, the Egyptologist's field is not exactly current events.
     My offbeat use of the term is an attempt to express the wish that I knew a lot more about Egypt, now that I and the whole world -- including Egyptologists, I'm sure -- are caught up in watching events and developments in that nation with fascination and, sadly, with growing feelings of horror. (Egyptologists will, actually, be very concerned about whether Egyptian antiquities in museums are being adequately protected through this upheaval.)
     What we are witnessing is a revolution, a brave attempt to kick out the rule-with-an-iron-fist President Hosni Mubarak and his cronies. He views himself, it seems, as some modern, all-powerful Pharaoh -- but his subjects are telling him:  "Let the Egyptian people go, stop your oppression and corruption, let them have democracy and  freedom, honesty and justice."
     But he is not going easily.
     In view of these events I have decided to improve my knowledge of Egypt, and have looked up a few facts concerning the country of today, with particular attention to geographical and other connections between Egypt and my own bailiwick, which happens to be the Greater Vancouver area of Canada. I also will draw conclusions from my research.
     What I have found may be of interest to those who might want to improve their ability to cope with the Egypt story.


     THE CLOSEST I HAVE EVER BEEN TO EGYPT, I'm sorry to confess, is 2,380 kilometres (1,479 miles) from it, and that was when I visited Vienna in 2002. While there I suppose I'd never have given a thought to Egypt, except that I met an Egyptian, a young chap from Cairo, who was very fluent in English, as well as in German.
     He was a street vendor of what we in Canada usually call hot dogs, and he sold me a very good one. (To me, anything Germanic in that line is A1.)  In a pleasant conversation with this vendor, after he told me he was from Cairo I asked why he had come to Vienna. His reply was that he wanted to see it because he knew it had a long history as a crossroads-of-the-world, and was one of the most beautiful of cities. He also had a yen to travel, see the world. Besides, he was doing better in Vienna than he could in Cairo.
     At the time I thought to myself, wow, he has come quite a long way from home. But, Mr. Mubarak's misdeeds and their aftermath have made me aware of how unconsidered that thought was, because, really, Cairo is not any further away from Vienna than, say, some town in western Ontario is from Vancouver. (Vienna, incidentally, is, by air, 8,415 kilometres, or 5,290 miles, from Vancouver.)
     My vendor, to be sure, is only one of many thousands of Egyptians who have left their home country for other lands. Some 50,000 to 60,000 have come to Canada -- and today are of course concerned about the welfare of their relatives back home.

     THAT'S A SMALL BIT OF PERSPECTIVE,  SO NOW HERE'S A BIG PIECE, one, I'd say, of greater significance. Our province of British Columbia occupies a territory of 365,948 square miles, and has a population approaching 5,000,000. Egypt, in comparison, has a size of 386,662 square miles, a little more than 20,000 square miles larger than B.C. -- and is occupied by a population of somewhere between 80 and 83 million people, depending on whose estimate you take.  Try to imagine B.C. with more than 80,000,000 people!
     Yes, B.C. has a much different geography than Egypt, we have too many mountainous regions to permit vast population expansion of Egyptian dimensions (try as our governments might to compress more and more people into some of our limited-space metropolitan areas).
     Egypt, says the 2011 World Almanac, is largely desolate and barren, although it has some hills and mountains in its east and along the Nile. So, lots of open, flat land, seemingly plenty of room for a large population. I think its population size, though, is a strong contributing factor to that nation's current problems. Of course, that's the case for much of the rest of the world as well -- too many people to support. (That's another topic, but a terribly important one, and it is one I intend to explore in detail in this space soon.)  
     The Egyptian nation and people rank on the world's list of nations at 103rd place in Gross Domestic Product, according to figures from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Canada is in 11th place. (I could not find comparable figures for B.C., so have had to rely on figures for all Canada.)
     Egypt's per capita personal income is estimated between $3,000 and $6,000 (30-40 per cent of the people being at or below the poverty line). Canada's per capita income is estimated to be around $35,000 to $38,000.
     I report these figures with no intention of trying to put down Egypt or boast about Canada. I use them to illustrate the dire economic plight of the Egyptian people. World food prices are fast rising, the world oil price is high and probably going higher, incomes don't show many signs of improving. So I ask: How can anyone wonder why Egyptians of all ranks are rebelling against a corrupt, cruel, authoritarian leader?




     BUT THERE'S A MUCH LARGER QUESTION THAN EGYPT. The geopolitical experts and analysts are, quite naturally, homing in on all the ins-and-outs of Egyptian politics, the demands of the people for democracy and a better economic life. They speculate on how the struggle there is going to turn out, how significant it is to Middle East peace. Also under review is the issue of whether Egypt represents another example of upheaval that threatens to expand in the Muslim world. Has the Middle East become a tinder box or not? Look at Tunisia and Yemen. Will we soon see ever more nations getting into the fray, with perhaps the U.S., maybe along with Israel, invading Egypt to "save" it? Where do Russia and China stand, what might they do? Questions abound.
     All of these are important angles, in particular the need for the settling of a permanent, workable peace in the Middle East. (A U.S.-Israel military expedition into Egypt, beyond doubt, would put Middle East peace on ice probably for years. Other complications that would burst forth from such an action, in fact, would be immense and more than dangerous. I want to believe it could not possibly happen.)


     I DO THINK, THOUGH, THAT A BIGGER QUESTION faces the entire world, not only Egypt -- and that is the issue of economic circumstances which seem to be working against the average person. The rising prices of oil and food are hurting everyone, especially those in less advantaged countries.
     Similarly, people lose when any of their tax payments are used up on government corruption and other wasteful spending, often for military purposes, the commission of which crimes are alleged against Egypt's Mubarak -- and also against some other leaders around the world.
     Thus, it is not unreasonable to ask:  How many other countries are there like Egypt (and, earlier, as noted, Tunisia and Yemen, and in Europe, milder displays in Greece, Britain and Ireland)? Will we see other nations with significant numbers of citizens who have reached such a stage of frustration and anger  that they, too, will soon take to the streets in serious mass protest?


     ALL OF THIS IS CLOSELY TIED TO GENERAL INFLATION, steady, unremitting inflation. So persistent is it, in fact, that it seems almost to be fixed government policy, never mind what oil cartels and Big Oil, or multi-national corporations, may do on their own to control markets. Governments appear to think that it's relatively harmless to just print more money to cover more deficits.
     The idea the Canadian government and most other governments have of trying to ensure that annual inflation is kept at "tolerable" levels of, say, two-or-so percent, has morphed into something more drastic.
     That is, into a condition in which governments, in effect, are showing that it is definite government policy to have an inflation rate that is no lower than that target rate. With the result that, if you are a saver, each dollar you saved last Dec. 31 will be worth 98 or fewer cents in purchasing power (happy New Year) next Dec. 31. And so on, year after year. (By the way, I don't believe government inflation figures; I think the true rate is quite a bit higher than we're told.)
     This all just dandy. You know, I'd like to see some mathematician-chartered account work out the total of compound inflation that has occurred, at least in the western world, since 1945, when wartime wage, price and profit controls more or less ended, and real economic development began its upward climb.  
     I'd think that figure would be an absolute fright. And if inflation keeps going the way it has (some experts say it will actually grow large, and fast), it will not end happily -- anywhere in the world.
     Will the Egyptian drama even begin to awaken thoughts of such possibilities, or of what might be done about them, in the minds of anyone among the several thousand key people worldwide who have charge of the fate of humankind politically, economically, militarily, culturally?
     Let us pray. (And you can be sure that I will have future observations and facts to outline as we discover how those prayers are working, or have worked.)
     
       
       
     
     
         
     

A TIME FOR CELEBRATION--AND SUSPENSE

    
     WHY IS BEGINNING A NEW YEAR such an exciting time, an occasion for celebration? Is it, as many suggest, because we have come to collectively recognize it as a time for summing up, for clearing the decks and starting anew? Or is it just an excuse for yet another party, a modern version of "pagan" winter festivals, before we have to plunge back into the same old rat race?
     I suppose it all depends on how we individually look at it. Perhaps there will seem something of the obvious in my own view on the matter, but, just to be clear about what that view is, I'd say most people are influenced in their outlook by how they made their way through the year just ended.
     If it has been a good year in their personal lives, say with an earnings increase or other happy event, they'll naturally be in an optimistic mood and eager to celebrate.
     Others less fortunate may be more inclined, if they are still able to "accentuate the positive," to welcome the symbolism of a new year as an opportunity for achieving a better life in the year ahead, and thus welcome New Year's partying as a way to express thankful good riddance to a difficult twelve months, and then celebrate with a degree of hope for the future.

     THERE'S A CHRISTIAN BACKGROUND to the celebration of New Year's Day, although, as with Christmas, the seasonal celebration aspect pre-dates Christianity; for example, ancient Egyptians, Phoenicians and Persians began their year at the autumnal equinox, and the Greeks at the winter solstice. And they celebrated.
     The Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia says that in the Middle Ages under the Julian Calendar, "most European countries . . . observed New Year's Day on March 25, called Annunciation Day and celebrated as the occasion on which it was revealed to Mary that she would give birth to the Son of God."
     But with the introduction of the Gregorian Calendar in 1582 (says my Encyclopedia Britannica), Roman Catholic countries began to celebrate New Year's Day on Jan. 1. Scotland followed in 1600, and Germany, Denmark and Sweden about 1700, England in 1752.
     The Jewish New Year, called Rosh Hashanah, or the Feast of Trumpets, comes in September, and is prescribed by the Old Testament as a holy Sabbath. The Chinese celebrate New Year's between Jan. 10 and Feb. 19 of the Gregorian Calendar. In India, because of wide cultural and ethnic diversity, New Year's is celebrated, usually as religious festival, on a number of different dates.
     For the world generally, though, we know that it runs mostly on the same Gregorian Calendar in many ways, so Jan. 1, and the night leading up to it, are big events just about everywhere.

     HOW IS IT, YOU WELL MIGHT ASK,  that our present-day New Year's festivities, in North America, other English-speaking nations, in South America, Africa, big chunks of Asia, and much of Europe besides, have lost their "holy" flavor?
     Well, I've searched for some authentic explanation, but have come up empty. I am therefore obliged to fall back on hunch and instinct: I believe that we must put it down to decadence, friends, pure decadence. We might, in fact, go so far as to say, "a backsliding to paganism."
     Those of religious bent, however, should not be too distressed, because they can take consolation from the fact that we have adopted the practice of making New Year's "resolutions," whether we're adherents of a religion or not.
     When we make resolutions to do better in this aspect or that of our personal lives in the coming year, are we not seeking improvement in a somewhat conscience-stricken way? And is not achievement of a clear conscience an everyday pursuit, practice and indeed promotion, of just about every religion? Quite so. And let us hope that the good resolutions are resolutely kept by one and all.

     WHAT DO WE HOPE FOR THE NEW YEAR? Everyone makes his or her own choices in replying to that question, so I can give only my own answers. Each of the answers, I must say, involves some element of suspense, because, well, that's part of the attraction of this time of year: Not knowing  what the future will bring. About all we can be sure of is that there will be surprises.
     Most people will, I expect, initially think about hopes for the New Year from a self-concerned point of view; that is, they consider their own status in life--economic, social, healthwise and otherwise--and how it might be improved. But before long they will also turn to considering the state of their nation and the world, since all are linked. If the nation is doing well, then they're more likely to as well; ditto the world.
     As for myself, I'll keep my personal-life concerns to myself (until such time as I decide otherwise, of course, because almost anything can be a subject for this space), but I will now proceed to briefly share my own personal and sometimes offbeat outlook on the nation and the world.

     ELECTIONS, ANYONE? It is highly unlikely that the people of British Columbia will be able to get through the year 2011 without an election, and might experience two, not counting the municipal kind. The two main B.C. parties are about to be leaderless, and so they, the Liberals and the New Democratic parties, will be staging leadership conventions to select replacements for Premier Gordon Campbell and NDP leader Carole James.
     The scramble to succeed each seems to be pretty lively. But, not having much more than an average citizen's knowledge of such goings-on (my days of covering politics being long gone), I won't try to pontificate about who might win the leadership jobs.
     As far as the Liberals are concerned, it would seem a stretch to think they can come up with anyone who has enough charisma and ability to rescue them from the low-popularity black hole that Campbell dug for his party. But one never knows, given the highly effective status modern political advertising-brainwashing has attained.
     With the NDP, one can only hope that the party's leadership goes to none of the cabal of backstabbers who performed their coup against James. There are more honorable ways of doing things.

     AND WHAT ABOUT THE NATIONAL SCENE? A national election, according to most reports, is being put down under the heading, "Likely, maybe." Today's news (Dec. 30, 2010) included a report that the minority government under Conservative PM Harper is making preparations to get into election mode, starting soon with a Harper cabinet shuffle.
      If a federal election does come in 2011, it will present Canadians with an important choice. They will have to examine very carefully where the Conservatives really stand when it comes to the national health insurance plan, Medicare.
      Voters will need to ask themselves whether they are prepared to risk cutbacks in--or even loss of-- that vital program should the Conservatives win a majority. If they have any smarts, the national Liberals will make Medicare and its future the main issue--and they should, quite justly, make the most of Harper's early-career expressions of firm dislike for such schemes as Medicare. As leader of a minority government, he has seemed relatively benign on the question, but if he should be handed a majority, I say, "Watch out!"

     THE AFGHANISTAN WAR IS THE OTHER major issue of the next federal election campaign.  Yes, the Canadian troop drawdown is in the works, but it seems to me there is a degree of government disingenuousness about precisely how and when and to what degree this will occur. I think this may be as a result of pressures on Ottawa from Washington, which needs all the help it can get.
     There is another military issue to consider: the federal government's deal--around $8 billion--for the purchase of up to 80 Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft.
     What's going on here? This is, or will be, one of the most efficient killing machines ever invented. Why do we, supposedly sensible Canadians, need these aircraft? So we can take part in a U.S. attack on Iran--or on Venezuela, or on any other country that dares to disagree with the U.S.?
     (Well, probably not Iran. It's too able to defend itself. Besides, to attack and invade Iran the U.S. probably would have to institute the draft, and that would be an insurmountable political problem for Mr. Obama. Maybe Venezuela, though. It has lots of oil, so we can be forgiven for thinking of the American conquest of Iraq and its oil. Except that, right, Venezuela is really friendly with Iran, and, besides, it might not be exactly a pushover militarily . . . . Well, maybe the Americans will pick somebody or something to attack, no doubt some place with oil, and likely ask us to go along for the ride . . . why, yes, with weapons like the F-35.)
     The F-35 deal to my mind is one of the most scandalously wasteful deals in Canada's history. It should not be allowed to proceed, in spite of any cancellation penalties that might be involved.  The Liberals and other Opposition parties have a duty here, and they must use every means at their disposal to stop that deal. If it means an election through a vote in Parliament that defeats the government, then fine--I say that with the voters of Canada,  that deal will not fly.

     FOR TITLE OF "LEADING HUMANITARIAN AND Newsmaker of The Year,"  I nominate Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks mastermind. He has brought to the public information the world has needed for many a year--the exposure of the not very pretty inner workings of the greatest and most powerful empire humanity has ever known, that, of course, of the country known as the U.S.A.
     The world cannot help but benefit in major ways because that empire, and any future pretenders to empire, are going to have take greater pains in informing an increasingly skeptical public about their policies and actions, if they wish to continue in elective, democratic office. They have suffered in the trust department. (Unfortunately, early reactions do not indicate a leaning in the direction of self-correcting reforms in government practices. The opposite--meaning greater pains to cover up with even greater authority--appears to be the more likely outcome.)
     One of the difficulties I see in the whole Assange-WikiLeaks story, however, is a very serious one and could present potential life and death issues. I am speaking of the lives of Mr. Assange and his organization's large crew of workers.
      Assange himself seems to me to be in real peril of never being able to walk a free man again and, in fact, might even find his life in danger, whether walking free or not. We've already heard calls from some in the U.S. proposing his summary execution. If the same attitudes extend toward any who might replace Assange in the event of his long-term incarceration, or of his execution or "disappearance," or extend even to those who work for WikiLeaks, then totalitarianism will have replaced democracy. We can only wish Assange and his helpers well, and hope we are totally wrong in the possibilities we have projected.              

     IN ANY NEW YEAR REVIEW,  ECONOMICS surely must top the list of assessments. The way things are economically today, and have been for the past couple of years, it's probable that a great many people will be happy to have made it through 2010 with little or no economic loss, never mind gain. And, in facing the 12 months ahead, both sets of individuals, the fortunate and unfortunate alike, will be including a note of caution in their expectations.
     It can be taken as a given that we face a rocky path ahead, through and probably beyond 2011, according to quite a few estimates. The U.S. would seem to be a major part of the problem. Of course Canada has by most accounts survived, and even recovered to a point, from the world "failure" economy of the past two years. We thus may adopt a holier-than-thou posture with relation to the rest of the world, and our so-called journals and broadcast outletssof record, and their knowing commentators, see good times returning, sort of.
     Canadians should not be misled. It's true that we are somewhat significant as a "petro-power" and we also have other vast resources. But the fact is that we are still very, very much tied (attached, bound, locked) to the U.S. economy. As the U.S. goes, so goes Canada; that is almost axiomatic.
     The problem is, the U.S. economy has been tanking, and there hasn't been much sign of recovery, although its government has tried heroically to put on a bright face.
     The thing that seems to me to belie the recovery scenario is America's debt picture. I do not think things can go very well for a country when its government  appears to believe (as has been evident in U.S. governments for some years, but seemingly more so now than ever) that the solution for too much debt is . . .  more debt.
      But aside the problems of the U.S., the world at large faces a continuing major--and much ignored--problem in the form of ongoing massive population expansion, as much as 83,000,000 extra mouths to feed per year.
      So far, world food production apparently is able to more or less keep up with the demand, but how long that can last is anybody's guess. At the moment in our part of the world we are experiencing price increases for food, and the ominous indications are that plenty more are in store.  
        
     BUT ENOUGH OF THE WORLD'S PROBLEMS for now. It's easy to say the world is going to hell in a handbasket, because (as has been often noted in the past) the world is always going to hell in a handbasket.
     It is also true that many people, many countries, many governments are doing their best to keep the world from arriving at an actual hellish place--and at this time of the year, while recognizing that they and we are far from perfect, we have to wish them well and hope for the best.
     If we are going to solve problems, of course, we need to define them, and supplying a degree of definition is my purpose in this Blog entry today.
     So I have to emphasize that, whatever may be in store for Canada, the U.S. and of the rest of the world, we cannot abandon hope for improvement, and we ought to individually try to work for it, through our contacts with others, and through our votes.
     In that spirit, and in a truly neighborly way, I also believe that we Canadians can and should say, to each other and to all peoples:
      "A Happy New Year to you and yours!"
          
          
  
  

  


 

STARTING ANOTHER GREAT SOLAR TOUR

     A NATIONAL CELEBRATION--Today, of course, we are celebrating a Great Canadian Event, the national football championship game. As everyone knows, it's in Edmonton, with the Saskatchewan Roughriders taking on the Montreal Alouettes in a contest for the Grey Cup. Millions of us, myself included, with my amazing extended family, will be watching.
     But there is another great event taking place in Canada today as well, and I like to claim, more or less in a jocular way, that it is what's being celebrated in the form of The Big Game and, thus, by all of Canada.
     I can say that with some confidence, too, because the Grey Cup game often falls on the same day as the second event.
     I blush to say what that second event is, but there's no avoiding it, so here goes:
    Today is my birthday! The day I begin yet another orbit of the sun. And, today, instead of mounting my blog's soapbox and declaiming about some failure in fairness and justice and common sense, or poking fun at this or that, I intend to indulge myself and use this space to speak about my birthday, birthdays in general, their meaning (if any), and about the matter of aging.
     Myself, I'm a "Thursday's child," a child the time-honored verse says will go far. (You know, the verse that says Sunday's child is this, Tuesday's child is that, and so on.)
    Well, I've already covered the question of going far with the reference to my new year getting under way by starting another circuit of the sun, which is one hell of a long way. How long? I've heard it said by experts (being the Monty Python comedy group, with its "Galaxy Song") that our globe, which spins at the rate of about 1,000 miles an hour, takes a year, travelling in orbit, to make one circuit of the sun, and it's moving at a rate of 19-or-so miles per second in so doing.

     SO, EVERYBODY ON THIS PLANET is going far (and, you might say, moving fast, flying off in all directions).
     Okay, maybe that's not what the Thursday's child line meant by going far. It no doubt means something like "going far in life." How far I've gone or will yet go in life is for others to say, not me.
     One thing that I can state for certain about my birth is that it came at an historic time--almost exactly one month after the Great Crash of Wall Street that marked the beginning of The Great Depression.
     In fact, another little joke I concocted about my birthday--that I was the first good thing to happen after the Wall Street Crash--came to my mind when I suppose I was around eight or nine years of age and the idea of what an economic depression was had finally hit me. Until then, I suppose I had thought this was the way things always were, since it was all I had known.
     I learned a lot from hearing my father talk at great length about Wall Street, in a very unkindly way--somewhat, you know, the way people talk so angrily and bitterly about Wall Street today. History, it seems, does repeat.
     My own childhood slowness in recognizing economic reality, such as might be expected in a well-fed-and-clothed rich kid with few worries (whom we defined as being a kid whose father had a regular job and whose kitchen had an actual fridge) was not a result of mental laxness. No, I think it was because I was a child, and, although we were economically poor, we (my brother, sister and I and our chums) always were able to find ways in East Vancouver of playing games and making up our own entertainments.
    Depression or no depression, we managed to have fun. (But once we got a radio, probably from some used-furniture shop, that was heavenly, I couldn't get enough of it. Oh, I loved that old Lyric.)

     IN RECOGNITION OF TODAY'S PERSONAL OCCASION, I have searched for information on the celebration of birthdays. One thing that took my eye (looking at Wikipedia) is that early Christians were against birthday celebrations because at that time birthdates were linked to astrology, considered by Christians to involve heathen and pagan beliefs, and therefore the work of the devil.  Today, we look at horoscopes, most of us, just for fun.
     Then I thought, well, perhaps I can find a quotation or two on birthdays from some famous writers. I have quite a number of books of quotations, yet my findings were sparse. But here's one from Alexander Pope (1688-1744), the great English poet:
     "...pleas'd to look forward, pleas'd to look behind,
      and count each birthday
      with a grateful mind..."
      That's a nice thought indeed. I lifted it from a book called 40,000 Quotations, published by Halcyon House, New York, 1937.

      THEN I SEARCHED FOR QUOTATIONS on aging,  since I am, with much gratitude to medical science, still enjoying the process of aging.
     Here's a quote from the Bible:
     "Good old age." Genesis XV, 15.
     An English writer named Seymour Hicks wrote this:
     "You will recognize, my boy, the first sign of age. It is when you go out into the streets...and realize for the first time how young the policemen look." Quoted in the Penguin Dictionary of Modern Quotations.
     Another Englishman, named Ronald Blythe, declared that:
     "With full-span lives having become the norm, people may need to learn how to be aged as they once had to learn how to be adult." From the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations. Blythe had a point.
     The French essayist La Rochefoucauld, in his Maxim 461, said:
     "Age is a tyrant who forbids at the penalty of life all the pleasures of life." The International Encyclopedia of Prose and Poetical Quotations,  Copp Clark Co., Toronto, 1908 edition.
     I'll try to remember that viewpoint in celebrating my birthday today.

     "THE TENDENCY OF OLD AGE, say the physiologists, is to form bone. It is as rare as it is pleasant, to meet with an old man whose opinions are not ossified." That's a quote from J.F. Boyse, in 40,000 Quotations. All I can say about it is, "Hear, hear!"
     A writer by the name of Bonstetten has recorded these thoughts on aging: "To resist with success the frigidity of old age one must combine the body, the mind and the heart. To keep these in parallel vigor, one must exercise, study, and love."
     Now, there's a man of wisdom for you.
     I have many more quotations at hand on age and aging, but too many of them are looking at the subject in a somewhat gloomy manner, and I do not believe birthdays are the sort of days that need any consideration of such sentiments. So I will end these notes on the passage of time, as represented by birthdays, with the following two gems.
     "There's no cure for birth and death save to enjoy the interval." -- George Santayana, quoted in The Viking Book of Aphorisms, a personal selection by W.H. Auden and Louis Kronenberger, 1966.
     "Old age isn't so bad when you consider the alternative." -- Attributed to Maurice Chevalier, the great French entertainer, quoted in Contemporary Quotations, 1964.  


     THE 1929 GREY CUP--In case I am asked, "Was there a Grey Cup, Granddad (or Great-Granddad) 'way back in 1929?" I will supply the answer now. You bet your life there was, kids. The Hamilton Tigers played the Regina Roughriders in Hamilton. Hamilton won, 14-3.
     They did not hold it on my birthday that year. Probably because they hadn't yet heard of my birth, since the game was held on November 30, 1929, only two days after my birth.
      I did not watch it on TV. Well, I was only two days old. But that's not the only reason I didn't watch it on TV.  Nobody did. You will find this hard to believe, kids, but there was no TV then. And, you know, life still went on....

     MUSN'T FORGET THE POLITICAL SCENE. In the world of politics of that day, the names I'm about to record were relatively famous.
     Those in three of the top jobs, on the day I was born, were the following.
     Premier of B.C.,  Simon Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, in office from 1928-1933.
     Prime Minister of Canada, William Lyon Mackenzie King, Liberal, who had several terms: December, 1921 to July, 1926; September, 1926 to August, 1930, and October 1935 to November, 1948.
     In the U.S., Herbert Hoover, Republican, was President.
     Oh, before I head off to my party, here's your truly's horoscope for the day, courtesy The Vancouver Sun:
     "Sagittarius (Nov. 22-Dec. 21)-- The changes going on within your personal circle may be disconcerting but, as long as you know where you belong and how you can make the most of your situation, you have nothing to fear."
     Well, how hard can that be?
     Happy Birthday--whenever yours may come!
    

THE KEY TO EQUALITY FOR WOMEN

     WHAT FOLLOWS IS DEFINITELY A PITCH for the women's vote, and I think that by the time I've outlined it you'll see how sane, sensible and simple it is.
     Before I get into the details, however, I'm obliged to disclose an element of self-interest, which is that I am the father of three daughters and thus personally interested in issues of women's equality (as are they, and as was their much-loved late mother, my wonderful Shirley).
     I also have to declare that in making a pitch for the women's vote I am not running for anything, I am not seeking elected office--but I am making a pitch on behalf of women's voting rights.
     Oh, you might say, women have long had the vote, where have you been? And I say, sure, but has it brought them equality? In other words, there's more to it than just having a vote.
     The pitch I am about to make shows the way to gender equality in electoral politics. Such equality does not now exist, though it is paid lip service. The deck is stacked against women when it comes to electing representatives to local, regional, provincial and national bodies. I also say the answer to the problem is so obvious that it's shocking to realize it has never been adopted.
     I believe there remains truth in the old saying that "it's a man's world," in spite of decades of so-called advances in women's equality. The peculiar thing to me is that we keep hearing and reading about the "glass ceiling" in board rooms and in other areas of private business, finance and industry, as well as in politics, but we don't hear much about the solutions, other than that, well, some advances are being made, male leaders and those in power are showing more awareness, etc. etc. (Really? Sure, women now make up some 22 per cent of Canada's House of Commons, up 1.4 percentage points in a decade. Wow.)
     Clearly, statistics on advances for women change slowly and women, though making up half and even marginally more of the population, remain significantly under-represented.

     A GOOD EXAMPLE OF WHAT MIGHT BE called a more advanced nation in the field of women's rights, Norway, has taken a significant step forward, but even it comes short of "going half-way." The Swiss-based writer and academic Ginka Toegel, points out that in 2008 Norway introduced "the requirement of 40 per cent women on boards." There was an initial outcry of criticism in the media and politicians, she notes, but it was found that there were easily enough qualified women for the jobs, and the results have been excellent.
     The proposal I have to make does not relate to the private sector, and it is not based at all on what Norway may have done or not done. It is based on something I discovered about six years ago as a great idea that would deal with the gender equality issue pretty well at its roots: electoral equality of the sexes.
     The system I endorse would make gender equality on all our publicly elected bodies not a matter of whim or chance, but would make it a sure thing, whatever the body up for election or whenever the vote might be held.

     THE OUTCOME COULDN'T HELP BUT DELIVER equality for women in all segments of society. The system would work like this:
     Electoral laws would be amended to ensure that in each and every riding, provincial or federal, in each and every seat available on any municipal or regional body, there would be a female representative and a male representative.
     Voila! Gender equality in fact, in spirit, in every practical way--with all the consequent improvements to society that could not help but result. Because the woman's viewpoint today is, I believe most women will agree, vastly under-represented in our legislatures and national parliament. The guarantee of gender equality in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not doing the job.
     I don't claim credit for the method of equal representation I am proposing. To the best of my knowledge, it, or some form of it, originated in first nations communities, and was proposed and voted on by referendum in some Arctic communities; unfortunately, it was voted down.
     I could be wrong, but I suspect that dominant male influence--and perhaps larger male voting numbers--were factors preventing implementation of a built-in equal gender representation in the Arctic.
     People with whom I have discussed this idea have questioned how it could be practically done. My answer is that in each provincial and federal riding there would be a ballot with a list of male candidates, and a ballot with a list of female candidates, and the person to top the poll would be an elected member--thus, one woman representative for the riding, and one male.

     BUT WHAT ABOUT THE EXPENSE? All those extra salaries, and related costs?  These are the main questions people ask. My answer is that this could be worked out by perhaps some consolidation of constituency boundaries, so that the increase in number of MLAs and MPs would not be drastic. Or, heck, we could go to an actual doubling of representation. As to the expense, well, I would ask: "What price can you put on democracy?" And when half the population is greatly under-represented, then it's rather difficult to call that real democracy, don't you think?
     I made a proposal to amend electoral law along these lines to the B.C. Citizen's Assembly on Electoral Reform of 2004, in a written submission. I received thanks for the submission from the assembly's office staff, but in its final report I could find nothing on the subject of electoral equality for women. This, despite the fact that in appointing the members of the commission, the provincial government had taken pains to ensure that half its membership was made up of men and half of women.
     We have yet, by the way, to see any significant reforms arise from the commission's efforts. It devoted most of its attention to a choice between to the majority-plurality system of declaring a winner in any given seat and the proportional representation-single transferrable ballot system, with no inclusion of gender equality in its findings.
     In a 2009 referendum on the choice, the single transferrable ballot system fell far short of the 60 per cent majority that was required for its adoption, so the majority-plurality system remains in effect.
     Ladies, you've got to put the heat on those guys running our politics. Remember, true equality is the objective. And you haven't got it, because it really requires equal representation.
                    
 

CANADIAN RATES U.S. ELECTION A SMASH HIT

     AN ENTERTAINMENT DELIGHT--Put up your hands, all Canadians who experience a guilty pleasure in watching U.S. political mayhem. Right, I knew it: The vast majority of you.
     And I am pretty sure it would be a good bet to wager that the number of Canada's TV sets tuned to U.S. channels for American election results on Nov. 2 equalled, if not exceeded, the usual ratings for Canadian elections.  (I haven't yet seen any of our Canadian TV ratings for the U.S. election night, and I'm not even sure the ratings people make such comparisons, but I'm sticking with my claim, I am, until proven wrong.)
     Of course, the big political show in all the American states has been loads of fun for weeks, if not months, and beyond any doubt will continue to be extra-rich entertainment for Canadian political junkies for a good time to come, especially over the next two years.
     However, before getting into some of the details of that most unpretty post-election political picture in the U.S., I must first give assurance that I am not making total fun of U.S. politics.
     It undoubtedly does have its comic side, when one gazes in fascination at the political fringes and extremes in that country.
     But U.S. politics is also a most serious business, because we are looking at a nation which frequently asserts that it is the most advanced, richest and powerful country in the entire history of the universe. That it can wipe out life on this planet is beyond question, but I'm not so certain, nor are lots of others, of its complete superiority in all other fields.
     Whichever way one looks at it, though, the U.S. political system is fascinating for its drama, for its nonsense, for its characters, for its laugh potential--and that all adds up to major entertainment. (Don't take my word for it. That American humorist of eons ago, Will Rogers [1879-1935], said it best, in protesting that he didn't make up jokes about U.S. politicians--to get laughs he only had to report what they were doing. He said, too, that "all politics is apple sauce.")

     SPEAKING OF DRAMA: Just today (Nov. 4), President Obama held his first post-election cabinet meeting, and emerged offering cooperation and conciliation and compromise on a number of matters to the Republican victors, calling a meeting for later in the month with their leaders.
     What will emerge from that meeting is anybody's guess, but for my two-cents-worth I'd say his offer is an obvious initiative-taking ploy. He can be sure he is going to get little cooperation from Republicans, that conciliation is hardly at the forefront of their minds. He is aware they will press their advantage hard over the next two years with the aim of achieving his political destruction in time for Presidential Election 2012.
     No doubt he is trying to place them in the position of being spoil-sports, making them refuse his cooperation, and tagging them with the blame for achieving nothing but gridlock in dealing with their nation's severe problems (and ours, too, in some important ways). Now, one doesn't know for certain that that's what is in his mind, but it would seem to be the most sensible way for him to go.
     The outcome of all this seems to add up to bitter U.S. political warfare for at least two years. How it will end is the great mystery, the thing that makes for drama and great show biz. If you want an extreme prediction, by the way--well, one of my old newspaper pals, who has been known to make astute observations, actually thinks the situation could deteriorate into a new civil war, partly as a consequence of the impatience of the Republican Party's extreme Tea Party wing with Washington's slow way of moving. My pal adds that such a civil war could even include a military political coup.
     I repeat: Talk about drama! Talk about entertainment!

     BUT THEN THERE'S THIS VIEW--Another good friend of mine, one with a background in finance and economics, sees a couple of possibilities (which do not include, at all, any kind of armed civil war or coup).
     One: That the heavy new Republican power in Congress may press the U.S. into even more corporate-directed breaks for big business, continued huge and even larger defense spending backed by pressures for more aggressive foreign policies, and consequent discarding of the budget slashing so adored by Conservatives. This, he originally felt, would likely create even more U.S. national debt, a worsening of the balance of payments, and dangerous additional inflation.
     Two: On the other hand, he concedes, a cooler look at the possibilities must perceive that Obama still holds considerable power. That's a reference to the fact (which my friend and I discussed) that his Democratic Party has retained its majority in the Senate, enabling it to block the now-Republican House, and he has considerable executive power, including a veto on legislation. Obama therefore can deny the Republicans any near-term realization of their ambitions.
     So it seems clear that he will use these powers to try to show the Republicans to be quite the opposite of a party that works for the average American. To back this position, which he tends to favor most, my friend says: "The checks-and-balances can now work in the opposite direction. The Republicans have plenty of time to hurt themselves."
     I would have to say that, though I might be missing something here, my second friend's thoughts have more likelihood of becoming evident than do the thoughts of my "civil war" friend.
     Myself, I wouldn't discount the violence theory absolutely, because it seems that plenty of armed militia types back the Tea Party, and the possibility of some idiotic outburst in a local way is conceivable, even if remote. These are aggressive people.
     On balance, the U.S. political future depends largely on what Obama does to handle the Conservative wave. He can win reelection if he plays the Republicans with care, while ready to aggressively counter their power plays and right-wing measures. And he will have opportunities to exploit conflicts sure to come between the Tea Party and the Republican Party. That would add in a big way to the entertainment. Imagine--a possible break-away in Congress of the Tea Party from the Republicans.
     But if President Obama gets locked into the compromise position that he now seems to be taking, he probably will have a limited political future.      

     AS FOR THE HISTORIC TUESDAY VOTE, I think we should emphasize that for Americans it was a hard-times election, and voting in hard times almost always goes against the party in power. In the same breath one must note it was also one of those odd American creatures known as mid-term Congressional elections--and historically those tend to go against the party in office.
     Given two factors like that, it's hard to see how the Obama government could have avoided a significant loss.
     I hate to say this, but I have a feeling that Obama's losses might have been the result of a degree of racism too. Some observers have sensed hints of this in parts of the electorate, pointing to upper Southern states where the Democrats did not fare well. In addition, part of the Republican Tea Party wing brandished campaign banners that indicated racist leanings.
     In viewing the Republican victory, I believe the Republicans are not necessarily going to tread an easy path in approaching the 2010 election.
     There will be no shortage of candidates for the Republican presidential nomination--as many as 15, in fact, according to some analysts.
     That might be a healthy thing for any party, to see such a deep interest in its ranks for that big job--but such contests can also be terribly bitter and sometimes leave lasting fractures within a party.

     UNDOUBTEDLY A LEADING CANDIDATE for the Republican nomination will be the Alaska belle, Sarah Palin. I don't see her chances as good, but she certainly is in the running.
     And, in case you haven't noticed, she is something of a take-no-prisoners type of fighter, not shrinking from showering ridicule and contempt on her opponents and critics. These are "qualities" that turn many people off. But I suppose it's rough-hewn Alaska for you. After all, she does describe herself in Alaskan terminology, referring to herself as a "momma grizzly" in politics. Then there's the other term, remember, which she applied to herself as a soccer mom. A soccer mom, said she, was "a pitbull with lipstick." 
     Thus, we might reasonably suggest that if she tries to maul her opponents in the nomination race as a momma grizzly might, politically, and rips at them in the manner of a pitbull, then she will create firm enemies for herself within her party.
     One other factor working against her is that, after the Nov. 2 vote, she got some blame from within her party. Two of her Tea Party senatorial candidates lost seats that were definitely up for grabs by the Republicans. In other words, they should have won them. But the two Tea Party candidates backed by Palin, in Delaware and Nevada, lost those seats ignominiously, thus depriving the Republicans of a majority in the Senate.

     I RATE MS. PALIN AS A LOW-POSSIBILITY presidential nomination candidate for one other reason: She did not run for anything in the Nov. 2 election. She did not, like so many of her Tea Party candidates, put her political future on the electoral line, to actually demonstrate and prove her reputed vote-getting power. Those who did win for the Tea Party likely will in my view begin to regard her, after a few weeks at their new jobs in the national legislature, as an outsider looking in, and themselves as better experienced and qualified on the national scene than she is.
     They might also begin to think of Ms. Palin as having used the 2010 Congressional election campaign for no other purpose than to further her presidential ambition.
     And, last but not least, they can easily blame her, as the most prominent face of the Tea Party, for the fact that on Nov. 2 the Tea Party Republicans elected only about 32 per cent of their candidates, after having held much higher expectations.
      So there you have it, my two-cents-worth. Does it foreshadow some greatly entertaining TV viewing, and newspaper and magazine--and Blog--reading over the foreseeable future? You will decide that for yourselves. But I say it does, in spades.
      And I haven't even talked yet about the menu of economic, fiscal or foreign policy changes that will result from this election.
      So I expect you will stay tuned, folks, to those U.S. news channels. Because you know it's going to be a blast.

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.








  

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.