Sound of Freedom

[Colin Parkinson]

Canadian Forces pilot welcome back anytime
GuelphMercury.com - Opinions - Canadian Forces pilot welcome back anytime

Scot Lougheed




Dear Editor - Re: "Guelph native provided aerial show" (Guelph Mercury, April 9).

We happened to be outside when Canadian Forces Captain Graham Morgan, in a CF-18 Hornet, flew over, and although we live out beside Guelph Lake, my nine-year-old son picked it out in the sky (the noise brought it to our attention) and yelled, "Dad, that's a Hornet!"

He watched all of the recent Jetstream shows on the Discovery Channel and is constantly bringing home library book after library book on aircraft, military or otherwise.

How could this flyover be bad, as your paper recently editorialized?

Knowing what I know as a taxpayer, the fun and excitement that came to my son's eyes -- and thinking of all the other young people who might've been watching and expressing the same joy -- was worth whatever time and effort it cost both the Canadian Forces and Captain Morgan.

I hope he had a nice visit with his folks, and if he ever wants to come for another visit, he is welcome to land -- and park -- in our front field. Just tell him to watch out for the hydro wires!

Scot Lougheed, RR 1, Guelph

http://news.guelphmercury.com/printArticle/321809

 

[tabernac]

And the original article complaing about the flyover.

High-flying pilot was out of bounds
April 10, 2008
GUELPH MERCURY

A mini-air show here Sunday afternoon that saw residents gawking skyward as a military jet zoomed overhead may have provided a brief supersonic thrill, but the pilot at the control stick of the Canadian Forces CF-18 Hornet fighter exercised extremely poor judgment with his behaviour.

There's a difference between someone taking the company car home for the weekend and someone roaring over a heavily populated area in the company jet fighter for the apparent amusement of family and others in your hometown.

Captain Graham Morgan, a Canadian Forces pilot with four years experience, may be a conscientious and highly dedicated member of the military, but this high-flying performance was highly out of place.

The Guelph native, who is stationed in Bagotville, Que., was attending an air show in Louisiana last weekend, where the Hornet was part of an on-ground display. He was piloting the jet home when he made his way to the international airport in Breslau for a scheduled "pilot rest." But before doing so, he made the well-observed circling of Guelph. After an overnight stay, he took off, but not before he again roared past Guelph.

The first question is, was there a true need for this pilot stopover in this area at all, instead of a direct flyback from the United States to the pilot's home base? If so, Morgan should have flown to Breslau directly and as unobtrusively as possible, without any ancillary aerial display over this city.

Citizens and taxpayers expect multimillion-dollar pieces of highly sophisticated military hardware to be treated with deference and respect. There was clearly no military purpose for the flight over Guelph and it shouldn't have taken place.

It's too bad that as of this week, Guelph is without parliamentary representation in Ottawa, following the retirement of Brenda Chamberlain. An incident such as this would be a perfect opportunity for a member of Parliament, particularly one in the opposition benches, to ask pointed questions of National Defence officials about what protocols should be followed when a Canadian Forces jet is being flown home from an out-of-country exhibition, and whether that protocol was breached here.

With no one from this community currently sitting in the House of Commons and able to pose these questions, we'll ask them here. We also suggest that any aerial show, however brief, should be confined to such venues as the Hamilton air show and the Canadian International Air Show at the Canadian National Exhibition.

http://news.guelphmercury.com/article/315329

Musta been a slow news day. That, and the author comes off as being a cranky leftist SOB.

Edit: To add leftist. Better descriptor.  ;D

 

[George Wallace]

And the original article complaing about the flyover.

http://news.guelphmercury.com/article/315329

Musta been a slow news day. That, and the author comes off as being a cranky SOB.

I would say that the author is a Lefty who really believes that we shouldn't have a military.  Funny how his comments are so diametrically opposed to the other side who are whining that they want to see what our Tax Dollars are being spent on, especially in the way of Defence, and that they should have free access to all Defence establishments to see where those dollars are spent. 

Just goes to prove that "you can't please all the people all the time".

 

[40below]

This was an editorial, not a news story. Here's the follo. Note the hed.

Notes from the desk of a grump
GUELPH MERCURY

It's not every day the newsroom receives a letter to the editor accusing the editorial writer of being a "grumpy old fart." It's almost as rare that a second letter will pop into the e-mail queue a short time later that conjures images of said writer as a reincarnated W.C. Fields chasing away children from his precious lawn.

Two such letters -- and a series of others in a more even-handed vein -- arrived here in recent days in response to an editorial last Thursday that scolded a Canadian Forces pilot with Guelph roots for buzzing over the city April 6 in a CF-18 fighter jet.

The two aforementioned writers not only had some choice words for the editorialist, they also twisted the knife by noting that the editorial writer was, of course, anonymous.

It doesn't take folks from outside the business to fire shots across the bow at those who are anchored at the editorial page desk. The day before Captain Graham Morgan made his flyover of the Royal City, Christie Blatchford, in her Globe and Mail column, put writers at her own newspaper in their place for "a particularly scathing" editorial on the Ontario coroner's office.

"I've never had that much truck for the breed that simultaneously write from the comfort of anonymity and please the newspaper publisher or owner," she wrote, the words spitting out of her keyboard.

"As many of you know, editorials, unlike columns, are meant to espouse the corporate or newspaper view, and they carry no bylines.

"That mixture of anonymity and official sanction can be a recipe for righteous hyperbole."

You have to suspect the Globe's editorialists are giving her a wide berth these days.

Outside of high school English texts where examples of Old English poetry by "Anon." can still be found, newspapers are one of the few public venues where anonymity in a very high-profile space is located each day.

With very rare exceptions, newspapers, including this one, maintain a centuries-old tradition of publishing unsigned editorials. Newspapers that do run signed editorials often carry an explanatory footnote, such as this one used by the Hamilton Spectator: "Editorials are written by members of the editorial board. They represent the position of the newspaper, not necessarily the individual author." As you can see, even in these instances there are invisible hands on the wheel.

Those words, in essence, also sum up the philosophy that lies behind unsigned editorials.

Because editorial writing is usually a collaborative process involving a back-and-forth exchange of ideas that is ultimately cobbled together by a particular writer, to claim the finished quilt is the work of one set of hands would be misleading.

Editorial writers are something like Carlton the doorman from the '70s TV sitcom "Rhoda," whose disembodied voice announced front-door guests over the intercom. Except at newspapers, there are plenty of Carltons.

At this paper, the input and oversight of three people usually goes into the concoction of the daily dollop of editorial stew. On occasion at large metropolitan papers, the number of people involved in these daily editorial think-tanks can keep pace with the size of the heist crew in "Ocean's Eleven."

So if you take umbrage with a particular editorial, remember there's often plenty of blame to go around. And if you're of a mind to shoot the messenger, it's best to have lots of ammunition.

Some editorials are as bright and shiny as a newly minted penny. Others, like this one for instance, can be as grey and thinning as the hair of an aging newshound.

On good days, an editorial will contain Churchillian flourishes that would earn a tip of the bowler from Sir Winston himself. Or a withering aside that would garner the admiration of Margaret Thatcher.

On bad days, they stumble like Homer Simpson, who after learning he was finally getting a chance to go to college began chanting "I am so smart, I am so smart -- S-M-R-T. I mean S-M-A-R-T." No wonder they provoke a collective "D'oh!"

 

[leroi]

Well, now you guys know why this civvy-Guelphite likes to visit  Army.ca.

The prevailing attitude towards the CF, at least what I've experienced in Guelph, is less than heart-warming.

With a son aiming for a career in the Forces, this forum is my lifeline.

(Don't underestimate the power of us mothers, though, when it comes educating the-less-informed people around us:  :gunner

 

[Colin Parkinson]

That editorial sounds like they are whining, they got slapped around and now say it wasn't just me, it was him and her!!!

 

[garb811]

That's the whole point of doing something by committee...