posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 03:00 AM
The short story as I understand it is Mr. Harper was very upset at not being treated better or more warmly received by the "passengers" and words
un-partlimentary and raised of voice were used by SEVERAL Canadian government officials in describing the gratitude expressed by some.
Uh, there may have been "officials" from the government of another nation on that flight too. I think that's what CBC 5th E. is angling on more
than the verbal fisticuffs. He couldn't "really" turn the plane around once airborne could he? He is a Bilderberger after (or should I perhaps say,
before) all eh.
I (embarassed at not knowing to speak and read more than enough French-Canadian to keep from starving and understanding what's happening in the
garage and pit lane or call to the mock-grid at the MC roadraces) am frustrated as I know there are some vocal members of the Montreal French speaking
community who were on the plane that have spoken out about this already. Even Monsieur Duceppe has spoken on it apparently. In what local hebdo "rag
news" - I have no idea.
No, Canada should have handled this like the Swedes - ahead of time - with great record keeping of where their citizens were and contact info - the
stuff of common sense. You see Swedes, unlike us Canadians actually register with their embassy in foreign nations as a matter of course during any
extended stay much longer than a lay-over.
Uh, they were dialed-in and cut an 0.40 reaction time light on the green "tree" light to execute. Superior use of commonplace modern technology -
cells and SMS text - absolutely freakin' brilliant and plain as the nose on your face - I mean how obvious.
I'm jealous that WE DON'T HAVE SUCH A SIMPLE AND CHEAP SYSTEM TO KEEP OUR CIVILIAN CITIZENS FROM BECOMING BOMB-MEAT SPLATTY-BITS DEAD - jealous, I
tell you, Cedar Green with envy. I want it for every Canadian abroad yesterday, if not sooner. Right on top of the situation 24/7/365 where ever we
have an embassy.
BTW: Mr. Harper has plenty of homeys in the MSM just NOT at the CBC, especially Susan Van Duzen (now that's a story that goes waaaaay back to
Stevie's time as Deb Gray's secretary). CTV and other privately held media outlets NOT run from the West are only paying "lip-service" to this
"Harper media kerfuffle" to guess what? Get their publicly funded competition at the CBC in a less favourable light as not having the ear of the PM.
A cunning and well executed strategy - if somewhat dubious in ethic. Such an Op. They must be giggling.
The big thing IS Harper and his media handlers and "coach Frum or "Little Rummy" want all journalistic queries for the PM to be "cleared"
approved and veted ahead of time like 43, sometimes with a Winnipeg-Ottawa-DC consult, listen to the language - it the same from all 3 sources
everytime and turns up in Asper papers before anywhere else. No Helen Thomas caliber real questions thank you very much.
The normal media have to get used to that and like it or lump it - because the PMO and Privy Council sets the rules for that. Case closed. And we'll
need to get aquainted with Cabinet Ministers that aren't allowed to talk in public much at all - and if they do it's scripted. Ever seen one take a
real unscripted question in the scrum? Can you say deer in the headlights? Some who in previous years were comfortable and able public-speakers are
now verklempt and sweaty and stuttery (eg: McKay and Ambrose) in oration.
This is hurting their political organization worse than it's hurting the media... Canadians may be pre-occupied and apathetic to lesser or greater
degrees but sooner or later we'll awaken and smell the coffee and find it's taste bitter.
They have in a short time built the "walls" that may pen them in by doing this. Think about it in relation to this plane flight and statements of
"measured response" and then think about other situations - Ambrose on Kyoto, Conner on CFB Gagetown Agent Purple etc. I believe there is a pattern
- some may differ in opinion and that's a good thing too. And I came to ATS for UFO stuff... go figure.
Remember our 9.
[edit on 3-8-2006 by V Kaminski]