My first take was to dismiss it as simply the best defense these 'homers' could come up with but then I thought.   To have pride and to be positive is only natural.  Aristotle and even George Bernard Shaw considered pride a profound virtue, while most world religions consider it a sin especially when it is false pride.  I then thought, if I allow them to get away with this nonsense it's risking their fantasy standing as fact.  So my Saturday morning is being taken up with challenging Hugh Holland, the editorial writer of the 'What's Up' direct mail flyer and to a lesser extent my friend Don McCormick. 

First, I want to take to task this embarrassingly ridiculous editorial.  Historically, an editorial has some gravitas.  It is usually written by the best and brightest the journal has to offer.  At What's Up they don't seem to work that way.  This latest effort is a shameless plug for an event for which they have practically zero knowledge.  They are so far out of their depth that those disgruntled volunteer firemen who have walked off the job need to be called back to prevent a drowning.

I'll rattle off some quotes.  In their very first sentence they say,"Muskoka has often been called a world class destination."  Venice is world class;  cities like Paris, London, Rome, New York are world class; tourist spots like Bali, St Moritz, the Greek Isles,  the Amalfi coast, even Banff - they are world class destinations, but Muskoka?    It's a really nice vacation spot in central Ontario; we all love it, but . . . let's not get carried away.

To suggest as they do that, "we now have proven experience at welcoming the world" is another stretch.  We had a pleasant experience with a whack of security personnel but I wasn't aware of welcoming the world.  The folks out at Deerhurst hosted some world leaders and their entourage but the rest of us outside the prison walls had no contact with the 'world' other than a few kids at a youth summit.  We welcomed the OPP.

The editorial suggests, "we are steps ahead of other areas and proved we can now host other such big events."  "We are now known as great hosts who welcome world leaders, government officials, security personnel and guests and that is a legacy that is worth more than the 50 million dollar infrastructure investment."  Let me stop there.  We in Huntsville hosted nobody. We organized nothing.  It was all done out at Deerhurst by the SMO.  Yes, we were welcoming but to mostly security personnel.  There were precious few journalists, almost no tourists and anyone you would classify as coming from the 'world' who was worth their salt was confined to Deerhurst.  We never met them.

Where pray tell was the proof that all this supposed praise heaped on us would not have been equally deserved by any similar community in this country.  Are they telling us that our fellow Canadians living in the Annapolis Valley, the Laurentians, Jasper or the Okanagan would not have performed equally?  I hope not.

Finally they state that, "Despite the best efforts of the naysayers and the ne'er do wells to undermine the efforts of the G8 planners, the event was a huge success."  They actually state that, without a whit of suggestion as to how they define success.  They even call it a huge success.  Any success is totally attributable to the fact that the G20 was moved to Toronto and it was the image of a police car burning on College and not on Main Street that was sent around the world.  Otherwise it could have been a disaster.

If you think about it, there was absolutely no publicity for Huntsville outside of Ontario and the most exposure Muskoka got was from the Fake Lake fiasco.  To be fair we got enough coverage that may result in people within driving distance visiting our area but to suggest that. "we all stand to benefit from the positive images of Muskoka generated by the G8" is just poppycock. The only images coming out of the G8 were of leaders shaking hands.  Maybe the huge success was that the photographs were exposed properly and in focus.

What's Up, next time you want someone to write about the G8 don't pick the one who answers, "G8?  Isn't that a new multi grain cereal?"

Now to Hugh Holland.  He suggests in the Forester that, "the world leaders need to travel to each others countries to gain some understanding that they wouldn't get holding these get-togethers at the UN."  What nonsense.  These are not bumpkins that just fell off the turnip truck.  They are luminaries that have extensive traveling experience and world knowledge. 

But on their trip to Canada what did they see when looking out the window?  Not the stable bank buildings that Holland alleges but steel barricades and the eerily deserted street scape of Canada's financial district that suggested an end of the world scenario.  They saw none of Toronto's rich cultural mosaic.  They didn't travel out College to take in a FIFA game at an Italian cafe.  They weren't allowed to leave their compound the take in the atmosphere, and smells and the vibrancy of our many multi cultural communities.  They in fact got no view of the city other than on television . . . images of burning police cars and robotic police in lock step drumming batons on shields.

At the end of his letter Hugh lost me with his conclusion about the Exhibition grounds not having sleeping accommodations and some problem with empty downtown hotel rooms.  Very odd.  I didn't really get what he was after.

It's admirable to defend your friends the Conservatives but this was not well thought out and way off the mark.  How many times do I have to remind you neo-cons that these leaders saw about as much of our country as someone at Pearson missing a connection, spending the night at an airport hotel and flying out early the next morning . . . almost nothing. 

Finally to friend Don,  Nobody is saying face to face meetings are not important.  You make a good point about how face to face with the security forces was a real positive.  Where I take issue is your suggestion that the face-to-face meetings at Deerhurst were worth the expense.  I suggest they were instead nothing more than face-to-camera photo-ops.   There wasn't enough time for substantive meetings.  You actually think that what passed as face to face meetings was worth a billion dollars?  Don, I know you like to be positive, but come on . . . you are brighter than that.

What amazes me is the local reporting on the G8  has all been about the ancillary events and parceling issues.  Nowhere is there even a mention of the purpose of the event . . . the talks and the results.   There's not a mention of the underwhelming uptake on Harper's maternal health initiative.  No analysis of the mild response to climate change and non proliferation.  No comment on the communique, no listing of other commitments or reporting on the promise to have accountability for previous commitments and report-backs. 

The G8 is supposed to be a meeting of world leaders focusing on world issues.  Many in our press have ignored that aspect and diminished our community by promoting it as essentially a Huntsville touristic pep rally.

David Harris is the editor and publisher of the Huntsville Online.