From: Gary Wiltshire 

Many useful experts would not have the charisma to be elected.  I'm
satisfied that my *elected* president chooses our cabinet and that our
*elected* Senate approves them or not.

On Tue, 08 Apr 2003 00:15:47 GMT, doug.bryce{at}sympatico.ca (Doug Bryce) wrote:

>Hold on a second....when did we get to elect our Minister of Defence.
>I agree that the voters in the riding *did* elect the individual who
>is now the MInister (is it Eggleton still ?), but no voters actually
>got to approve his Ministerial appointment!
>
>Having said that, I *do* agree with the point that you're making - our
>cabinet members are at least elected members of Parliament.
>
>doug
>
>On Mon, 7 Apr 2003 15:03:10 -0400, "John Beamish"
> wrote:
>
>>Entire body of Congress?  I thought that Secretary confirmation hearings
>>only involved the Senate.  Thanks for correcting me.
>>
>>My point is still accurate:  the path via which a person becomes Secretary
>>of Defence in the United States is substantially different from the path via
>>which a person becomes Minister of Defence in the UK and Canada.
>>
>>I know for a fact that the electorate has approved of the Minister of
>>Defence.  The same cannot be said for the Secretary of Defence who has not
>>been, as the phrase goes, tried in the crucible of an election.
>>
>>This difference is fundamental and goes to the very heart of our different
>>forms of government.  The fact that a Minister must be elected means that
>>s/he has to subject him/herself to questions in the Commons asked by any
>>other member.  It is something that cannot be ducked.  In the American
>>system, the Secretary holds press conferences.
>>
>>
>>"David Blair"  wrote in message
>>news:3e918dc4{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> His work is at the behest and approval of not just the
president, but the
>>> entire body of Congress.
>>>
>>> I still don't find your point accurate, albeit that he isn't elected.
>>>
>>> "John Beamish"  wrote in message
>>> news:3e918aa9{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> > I was referring to Rumsfeld.  As I mentioned in a private
conversation,
>>in
>>> > the British (and Canadian) system the Ministers (equivalent to
>>> Secretaries)
>>> > need to be elected.
>>> >
>>> > This is important (to me, at least, in this case) because this is
>>> > frequently -- and, I believe in many ways, accurately --
as Rummy's war.
>>> >
>>> > (BTW:  I do recognize that this is, at its most basic, simply an
>>artifact
>>> of
>>> > the different types of political structures.  It is the
"follow-on"
>>impact
>>> > that I think is significant.)
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > "David Blair" 
wrote in message
>>> > news:3e90f49c{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> > > Get a grip. He was elected. I can't help it if Pain
is unfamiliar with
>>> how
>>> > > our nation elects its leaders. He's not alone- too
many here are
>>> confused
>>> > as
>>> > > well. He's probably with the many who think there is
a national
>>election
>>> > for
>>> > > the President.
>>> > >
>>> > > There isn't.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > "John Beamish"
 wrote in message
>>> > > news:3e90e8d1$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> > > > He has had some scathing comments about
decisions taken by the
>>> unelected
>>> > > > leadership of your country.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > He has had some equally scathing comments about
decisions taken by
>>the
>>> > > > elected leadership of his country.
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > "Gary Wiltshire"
 wrote in message
>>> > > > news:rqh19vc32p3a8g5ggbark5r0nri1opdalq{at}4ax.com...
>>> > > > > Shitting on my country every chance he
gets hardly merits
>>> "courtesy."
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > On Sun, 6 Apr 2003 18:40:44 -0400,
"John Beamish"
>>> > > > >  wrote:
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > >As I mentioned in a post a moment ago,
public figures put
>>> themselves
>>> > in
>>> > > a
>>> > > > > >position where they are subject to
parody.  Why shouldn't we make
>>> fun
>>> > > of
>>> > > > the
>>> > > > > >others here?  Courtesy.
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > >"Gary Wiltshire"
 wrote in message
>>> > > > >
>news:lv919vo6smjors85gr15hfgi014vghkjht{at}4ax.com...
>>> > > > > >> Perhaps if Phil would learn to
spell the name of his PM?  I,
>>BTW,
>>> > > > > >> don't call him Pain.  I call him
Phingerpainter.
>>> > > > > >>
>>> > > > > >> On Sun, 6 Apr 2003 14:00:41
-0400, "John Beamish"
>>> > > > > >>  wrote:
>>> > > > > >>
>>> > > > > >> >I grew up having to endure a
couple of "ha-ha, that's so
>>funny"
>>> > > plays
>>> > > > on
>>> > > > > >my
>>> > > > > >> >name.
>>> > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > >> >The recent fascination of
renaming one of the contributors
>>here
>>> > > > reminds
>>> > > > > >me
>>> > > > > >> >of the first time on Canopus
that I referred to Windoze.
>>> > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > >> >I was told, quite clearly,
that it really wasn't appropriate.
>>> > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > >> >Neither is the current
variation of the game.
>>> > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > >> >"David Blair"
 wrote in message
>>> > > > > >> >news:3e906767$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> > > > > >> >>
>>> > > > > >> >> "Robert Comer"
 wrote in message
>>> > > > > >> >>
news:3E8FD696.60709{at}mindspring.com...
>>> > > > > >> >> > I was wondering the
same thing earlier today.
>>> > > > > >> >> >
>>> > > > > >> >> >  > somethings up.
>>> > > > > >> >> >
>>> > > > > >> >> > It's called war and
disinformation is a common tactic.
>>> > > > > >> >>
>>> > > > > >> >> Just read this group and
Phil Pain and you'll get plenty.
>>> > > > > >> >>
>>> > > > > >> >>
>>> > > > > >> >>
>>> > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > >>
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4