And here I thought you were supposed to be a reasonable leftie, and worth reading - that’s what I was led to believe anyhow. I shoulda known better when I saw the category “(Right)WingNuts”

Pity.

Do you have to secure a permit whenever you stage a protest rally?

Why is it that some people are disappointed when protests don’t become violent?

At any rate, good job on the demonstrations. As it is, I have January 20th marked off on my calendar — I hope to follow your good example.

And here I thought you were supposed to be a reasonable leftie…

And there is something unreasonable about attending orderly rallies and demonstrations Andrew? Interesting philosophy, I wonder if you consider those few who came out with pro-Bush/pro American policy ideas in their minds equally unreasonable.

*fizzle*

Not by any stretch of the imagination IrC, there were people from every Province and two of the three Canadian Territories, the numbers were high, and our message was consistant. I suggest to you that the media and observers reporting *fizzle* want to minimize what took place.

Do you have to secure a permit whenever you stage a protest rally?

Yes, and the organizers work closely with the police so that everybody is on the same page and trouble is either avoided or kept to a minimum.

…�the rich elite who stand to benefit from a Canadian sell out� included Jose Kusugak and Phil Fontaine?

No, I ddidn’t know that, but in the interests of political correctness I’m not surprised.

Why is it that some people are disappointed when protests don�t become violent?

Because they want to paint the entire left as violent idiots - anything that disproves the idea that we are all radicals breaking windows, spray painting cars, and/or fighting with cops is painted as a failure…. it helps them deal with a reality they are basically unwilling to admit exists - that we are really just like them but have a different set of values and priorities.

I am very glad that the protests did not become violent because it would not represent Canada in a good way. I was also very surpised that the turnout was not as big as projected.

I wonder what was accomplished during Bush’s visit. Canadian cattle is still banned and he still doesn’t plan to remove this sanction. I am also disappointed that tariffs on Canadian lumber are not going to be decreased by the Bush administration.

In practical terms, these meetings actually do matter. There are hundreds of issues and bureaucrats competing for a head of state’s attention. When a visit like this is announced, senior bureaucrats on boths sides scramble to prepare good news announcements, formulate negotiating positions, and prepare issue briefing notes and position papers on everything affecting the relationship of the countries. Paul and George don’t actually sit down man to man and solve problems: but the two bureaucracies (where the work is actually done) go into high gear on Canada/US issues, with the goal of being able to announce positive resolutions - and that’s a good thing.

“the media only states what they want us to hear.”

This widely held misperception is always of great interest to me. I’ve worked in and with media since 1976, and I can tell you emphatically that there is no covert media agenda. There are editorial stances right across the political board within various media outlets: but there is no media conspiracy, Mssrs. Chomsky and Limbaugh notwithstanding.

“You claim there is no media agenda?”

Correct.

“The media only reports what it thinks is newsworthy.”

Correct. Media only report as “news” what they feel to be “news”. Umm…would you want them reporting as “news” stuff they DIDN’T feel was “news”?

“It appears that Canadian media focused only on the issues of Bushâ??s visit which were not resolved (lumber & cattle). You claim there are editorial stances right across the board but do these opinions make it to mainstream media? Yes, we read these editorials in newspapers, however, on television we keep hearing the same stories over and over again and why is that? Because most of these media corporations share the same ideological views and are owned by major media coporations. Let me give you another example. When the U.S. was in Chile last week you rarely heard about Chilieans protesting in U.S. media.”

Maybe it’s me: but I don’t understand what you’re saying here. You seem to be suggesting that there is some kind of consensus among media to promote or suppress coverage of a particular editorial slant. Given that the media in Canada are both public and private, and that their ownership ranges from leftish to the far right, I’m really not sure how you feel such a consensus would be arrived at.