Odd that we get critized for merely reacting to the U.S. but now a truly insignificant molehill is over-shadowed by a mountain, and all the [sorry, I can't finish the rest of this. I feel a seizure coming on and will have to go to bed (in our timezone it's long past my bedtime anywaah). IMore tommmorow, but I'm glad to see you've dropped your claim that she was a politician. Let me tell you what communications do in the Westminster system. They are not household names like Ari Flllleischer [sp/), who hold press conferences. But I've had direct experience withh how communications directors (I've worked with 3 different ones within the Alberta government) work; they brief the PM, they issue official statements to the media in the name of the minister (be prime or merely stewing meat...) but they do not hold press confeence. They organize them, and they research and put together mediabut they then become background figures who are with the minister when the *minister* calls a media release. They're part of the background people who don't say a word during the press conference.
Incidentally, the official involved, Francie Ducros, has quit several weeks before she was going back into the general civil service pool But sometimes what is meant as unintional becomes a kind of lightning rod, or attractor internationaly (we [in general] claim the U.S. ignores us (Condoleeza Rice, for instance, when asked who the US's largest trading partner is in terms of exports and imports, said it was Mexico. It's not -- cross-border trade between the U..S and Cannada is the largest. I think there's a reason this has struck home, but more or lesss in a symbolic way. So beelow Ive posted ah article . Ironicalyy these incidents are often an expression at the right time and space, as it wre. I don't agree with everything Paul Knox wrote, but he basicaly makes the ppoint I'm trying to make. And, on two ending notes: 1) Ducros resigned today. After 5 years inthe PMO she wanted to move on and was due to quit in several weeks ayway; 2) Why don't officials have the right to free speech? The Alberta public affairs group in the Premier's office would not make public someone made in private -- leaks are just not our way, as a rule. Secondly, Jim, you don't seem to have read the article you posted, just as you misremembered what the nature of the position. The article does *not* say that any public officials or politicians said anything. It was a private company, MediaWorks, who made the comment about Bush being an idiot (what's next, an imbecile?). I happen to know them because they were in my sector when I was at work at Alberta Innovation & Science. The Premier's office has contracted MediaWorks for website-related work, and some individual departments have also contracted out to them. So no "public official" or "politician" called Bush an idiot, but rather a person at MediaWorks, which is a private company. You are straining for gnats and are getting camels ;-) And I still haven't heard a peep out of you when I pointed out that the Toronto Star, which was actually following behind other media (it was a National Post writr who overheard the private conversation. You again did not seem to have read what the articles actually say, but have yet to acknowledge it. It seems you're surfing the web trying to find out about incidents like this. For once the tables are turned; normally Canada is simply ignored by the current US administration and feel thin-skinned when someone satirizes us, like Jonah Goldberg did (although not me personally, but it's common amongst Canadians). Are you going to admit you were wrong in both instances, truly hoist by your own petard regarding the nature of both incidents. Jim Cobabe wrote: > Another article worrying about Canadian political insults. > > "http://canada.com/national/story.asp?id=%7BAFC42C56-BB5F-457B-AEAF-5D58F21AB39C%7D" > > Those Canadian political officials can't seem to keep their lips > buttoned. > > --- > Mij Ebaboc > -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland “Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on” – Winston Churchill Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. =============== Bush’s big-stick folly By Paul Knox, “Worldbeat,” [Toronto] Globe and Mail, 25/09/02, pA19. The roots of George W. Bush’s first-strike folly go back a century, to another Republican who had a talent for marrying foreign policy and water-cooler wisdom. Theodore Roosevelt led his country to world-power status, first as a cavalry commander and then as its 26th president. It was he who advised the United States to speak softly in global councils, and carry a big stick. Seeking to end the influence of Europe in Latin America, Roosevelt claimed for the United States the right to regulate the Western hemisphere unilaterally. It was to assume the duty of maintaining order throughout the Americas, and intervene in the affairs of Latin American states to ensure they stayed in line. In return, Washington expected the rest of the world to butt out. Roosevelt’s dictates vastly expanded the Monroe Doctrine, set out by an earlier president in 1823. These principles, together with the Cold War doctrine of containment, eventually led the United States down a sinister path. Its occupations and proxy administrations of Cuba, Haiti and the Dominican Republic lasted for years. Later, combining the Monroe Doctrine with the Cold War principle of containment, it condoned and, in some cases, helped engineer the overthrow of elected governments. It trained armies that not only put down insurrections but brutally suppressed popular movements. One way to read the National Security Strategy that Mr. Bush unveiled last week is as a Monroe Doctrine for the entire planet. It proposes explicitly to maintain overwhelming military supremacy around the globe. It asserts the right to intervene wherever it declares that a threat of terrorism or mass destruction exists. But the Bush document is much more than a justification of pre-emptive action. It is an evangelical tract, a manifesto for the implementation of the American way on a global scale. It contains strontg overtones of the French mission civilisatrice, according to which superior civilizations had a duty to spread the lessons of success around the globe. There is, Mr. Bush says, “a single sustainable model for national success: freedom, democracy and free enterprise.” He declares that “economic freedom is the only source of national wealth.” He vows to use “this moment of opportunity…to bring the hope of democracy, development, free markets and free trade to every corner of the world.” Many Americans in many countries work sincerely to make such things come true. But they are not the only ones who do so, and U.S.-style democracy is not the only kind worthy of support. Moreover, the history of the last century suggests that the United States cannot always be counted on to act for the common global good. Powerful as they are, U.S. presidents operate under domestic political constraints. For every Woodrow Wilson preaching self-interested internationalism, there’s a Jesse Helms obstructing the United Nations. For every Franklin Roosevelt smoothing the waters with a Good Neighbour policy, there’s an Oliver North working to subvert the democratic process. The mantra of “economic freedom” is similarly unconvincing. First of all, certain restrictions on free enterprise are demonstrably compatible with economic growth, and sustainable over decades when sanctioned by voters in free elections. Second, in U.S. practice, “free trade” means trade on U.S. terms. It means forcing its way onto markets for services, cultural products and government procurement. It means protectionism for domestic U.S. industries with political clout. ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ==^^=============================================================== This email was sent to: email@example.com EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===============================================================