Clinton’s human rights remarks against diplomatic etiquette inter­est­ing arti­cle where US Sec­re­tary Hillary Clin­ton has been accused of mak­ing remarks that are improper for a diplomat.

Ana­lysts on Thurs­day crit­i­cized US Sec­re­tary of State Hillary Clinton’s remarks on human rights in China as “totally improper and impo­lite” for a diplomat.

The com­ments made by Clin­ton go against “diplo­matic eti­quette,” Zhang Shengjun, a pro­fes­sor of inter­na­tional pol­i­tics at Bei­jing Nor­mal Uni­ver­sity told the Global Times.

Clin­ton claimed in an inter­view with the Atlantic Monthly pub­lished Tues­day, the sec­ond day of the third round of China-US Strate­gic and Eco­nomic Dia­logue (S&ED), that China had “a deplorable human rights record” and feared the polit­i­cal upheaval in the Mid­dle East and North Africa might spread.

They’re wor­ried, and they are try­ing to stop his­tory, which is a fool’s errand,” she told the magazine.

James Palmer, a British his­tory scholar liv­ing in Bei­jing, told the Global Times that “Fool’s errand” are harsh words, which are very unusual for diplo­mats to use.

It’s wrong for Clin­ton to com­pare the sit­u­a­tion in the Mid­dle East to that of China because the issues China is faced with are totally dif­fer­ent than those in other regions,” Ni Feng, direc­tor of the Insti­tute of Amer­i­can Stud­ies at the Chi­nese Acad­emy of Social Sci­ences, told the Global Times yesterday.

Wash­ing­ton has recently stepped up its rhetoric on China’s human rights, as Chi­nese ana­lysts say the Obama admin­is­tra­tion is cater­ing to pub­lic pres­sure within the US by using the issue to press China dur­ing the S&ED.

The US has no eco­nomic and strate­gic choices to press China so human rights is nat­u­rally the only thing it could use at the moment,” Yuan Peng, direc­tor of the Insti­tute for Amer­i­can Stud­ies at the China Insti­tute of Con­tem­po­rary Inter­na­tional Rela­tions, told the Global Times.

China Tues­day dis­missed the accu­sa­tions by the US, stat­ing that no coun­try is per­fect on human rights and China is ready to con­tinue to engage in dia­logue, enhance under­stand­ing, reduce dif­fer­ences and expand com­mon ground on the basis of equal­ity and mutual respect.

China said on Thurs­day that tol­er­ance and com­mu­ni­ca­tion are vital for a har­mo­nious Sino-US rela­tion­ship that not only serves the fun­da­men­tal inter­ests of both sides, but is also con­ducive to the peace and sta­bil­ity of the Asia-Pacific region.

The Asia-Pacific is one region where the two coun­tries’ inter­ests are most inter­laced. As coun­tries with a major influ­ence in the area, their har­mo­nious co-existence and favor­able inter­ac­tions will be con­ducive to regional peace, devel­op­ment and pros­per­ity,” Chi­nese for­eign min­istry spokesper­son Jiang Yu said at a reg­u­lar press brief­ing in Beijing.

The two coun­tries share more com­mon inter­ests and respon­si­bil­i­ties than dis­putes and con­flicts within the Asia-Pacific region, and the mutu­ally ben­e­fi­cial co-existence of China and the US depends on con­fi­dence and trust, she added.

The state­ments came a day after the end of the S&ED, dur­ing which the two sides have agreed to estab­lish a mech­a­nism of con­sul­ta­tions on Asia-Pacific affairs.

By Wang Zhaokun
Global Times

1st Amendment and Etiquette… Only in the U.S

Last week, con­ser­v­a­tive polit­i­cal com­men­ta­tor, Ann Coul­ter, had a speech can­celled at the Uni­ver­sity of Ottawa because of pro­tes­tors and I couldn’t stop think­ing about it.  Which side was right?  Should the speech have been cancelled?

The job of a polit­i­cal com­men­ta­tor is to not only get your point across but also to make sure that point is remem­bered.  Ann Coul­ter makes some out­ra­geous com­ments.  Does she believe them?  Absolutely.  Could she word them dif­fer­ently?  Prob­a­bly, but then you wouldn’t be remem­bered and in com­men­tary, controversy sells.

The Uni­ver­sity of Ottawa invited Coul­ter to speak on cam­pus.  By extend­ing the invi­ta­tion, the uni­ver­sity should have been aware of Coulter’s rep­u­ta­tion for out­ra­geous com­ments and been pre­pared for it.  In fact, a mem­ber of the aca­d­e­mic coun­sel sent Coul­ter a let­ter to remind her that Canada has laws regard­ing hate speech and she could face charges for her com­ments.  So, obvi­ously some­one was aware what might be said.

When going to a for­eign coun­try, you need to be respect­ful of their laws and cus­toms.  Liv­ing in Amer­ica, we take our free­doms and the first amend­ment for granted.  When we leave the coun­try, we must remem­ber that these free­doms and pro­tec­tions do not go with us and we must abide by the rules and laws of the coun­try we are vis­it­ing.  Ann Coul­ter should have been aware of this when she accepted the invi­ta­tion and real­ized that she should tone down her speech to be within the law.

Col­leges and uni­ver­si­ties should encour­age ideas and be places where dif­fer­ent view­points and opin­ions can be expressed.  By can­celling the speech, the Uni­ver­sity of Ottawa did just the oppo­site.  They were guilty of cen­sor­ship.  They used the guise of safety – because of the pro­tes­tors it wouldn’t be safe for Ann Coul­ter to speak – and decided to cen­sor her opinions.

So, who is right?  The school should have known what they were get­ting when they booked Ann Coul­ter.  Ann Coul­ter should have known about the Cana­dian laws and pre­pared accord­ingly.  Did she?  Prob­a­bly not because if she were charged, it would add to her publicity.

 In the end, I think the Uni­ver­sity of Ottawa and its stu­dents are the losers.  The pro-Coulter stu­dents lost because they didn’t get to hear her speech.  The anti-Coulter stu­dents lost because they cen­sored free speech and obvi­ously have learned noth­ing in their stud­ies – unless they’re major­ing in run­ning dic­ta­tor­ships.  Finally, the school lost because they tried to shut down Ann Coul­ter and have only made her stronger.  After all this con­tro­versy, Ann Coul­ter keeps her name in the news and the requests for her appear­ances keep rolling in.  Her books keep sell­ing and her bank account keeps ris­ing.  Well played Uni­ver­sity of Ottawa.

What do you think?  Would love to hear your thoughts.…

Mayor of Soul

Los Ange­les Mayor Anto­nio Vil­laraigosa per­formed his best soul man imper­son­ation dur­ing the city’s launch event for African-American Her­itage Month. While hon­or­ing Chaka Kahn and Jamie Foxx, Vil­laraigosa swapped his nor­mal speech pat­tern for a black dialect. Maybe he was try­ing to be cool, but when you have to TRY to be cool, you nor­mally end up look­ing like a fool. In this case, Mayor Vil­laraigosa did just that.
While intro­duc­ing Chaka Kahn, Vil­laraigosa said, “She’s received 10 Grammy awards every­body. And a BET life­time achieve­ment awode. By the way, I’m at the BET awards every year held here in Los Ange­les.”
While intro­duc­ing Jamie Foxx, Vil­laraigosa said, “Is there any­thing Jamie Foxx can’t do? Mannnn … I love, I love that con­vo­sa­tion we had in our office a few min­utes ago. Because you know what — don’t think for the moment that this brother couldn’t run for office.”
While attempt­ing to be cool, Mayor Vil­laraigosa embar­rassed him­self, the city he rep­re­sents and offended the black com­mu­nity. Jamie Foxx rec­og­nized Villaraigosa’s approach and spoke in Span­ish dur­ing his accep­tance. Does this make Jamie Foxx look like a fool? Def­i­nitely not because Span­ish is an actual lan­guage. In fact, his knowl­edge of it makes him look even more impres­sive. What Vil­laraigosa was speak­ing was not. Vil­laraigosa was pre­tend­ing to be some­thing he isn’t (black) while appear­ing to be exactly what he is (a fool). If he would like to take a course on pro­to­col I would be more than happy to vol­un­teer my time.

Until next time,


State of Rebuke

Effec­tive lead­er­ship usu­ally trans­lates into suc­cess. Start­ing with a clear vision, the leader needs to make this vision known and drive his peo­ple to com­plete the vision. Along the way mis­takes are bound to be made. A good leader can han­dle these sit­u­a­tions and use them to strengthen the team. Humil­i­at­ing a worker in front of all of his col­leagues is the WRONG approach, but one recently used by Pres­i­dent Obama dur­ing his State of the Union speech.

By express­ing his dis­plea­sure with the Supreme Court’s rul­ing in Cit­i­zens United v. Fed­eral Elec­tion Com­mis­sion, Pres­i­dent Obama vio­lated polit­i­cal eti­quette and scolded the jus­tices of the Supreme Court while they sat in front of him. Not only were the jus­tices scolded, but it was done in front of the entire leg­isla­tive branch of the gov­ern­ment and a national tele­vi­sion audience.

The pres­i­dent and the jus­tices do not have the tra­di­tional employer-employee rela­tion­ship because the Con­sti­tu­tion con­tains sep­a­ra­tion of pow­ers safe­guards to pro­tect our demo­c­ra­tic process. How­ever, scold­ing them in such a pub­lic forum while they were in atten­dance was an action of an inef­fec­tive leader. Pres­i­dent Obama does not have to agree with their deci­sion, but he does have to respect it and his arro­gant com­ments clearly show he does not. An effec­tive leader would pull the employee aside and han­dle this sit­u­a­tion qui­etly. Since the pres­i­dent can­not do this, a bet­ter forum for his com­ments would have been a press con­fer­ence where he could have voiced his dis­plea­sure while not embar­rass­ing anyone.

On the other hand, no employee likes to be pub­licly scolded, but when it hap­pens the employee should not attempt to show up their boss. While Pres­i­dent Obama was dis­cussing the deci­sion, Jus­tice Samuel Alito was seen shak­ing his head and mouthing the words “not true.” Once the Supreme Court has ruled on a case, the jus­tices’ work is done and it is up to the peo­ple and the leg­is­la­ture to deal with the rul­ing. Jus­tice Alito also vio­lated polit­i­cal eti­quette by fail­ing to main­tain the aura of impar­tial­ity and under­stand­ing that peo­ple are enti­tled to debate their decisions.

After an ardu­ous first year in office, Pres­i­dent Obama failed to dis­play the qual­i­ties of an effec­tive leader dur­ing his State of the Union speech. As the leader of the United States, Pres­i­dent Obama should know bet­ter and proved it may well be three long years until we can have effec­tive leadership.

If Politics is Big Business, Then Should Politicians Be Minding Their Manners?

Giving a presentation business etiquetteIn busi­ness, you should never speak ill of your co-workers, man­agers or com­pe­ti­tion..  You should always do your research on your com­peti­tors and you should under promise and over deliver.  By not fol­low­ing these sim­ple rules, you will more than likely not be suc­cess­ful unless your busi­ness is politics.

Pol­i­tics is big busi­ness and in pol­i­tics all is fair  includ­ing lying.  Remem­ber these famous pres­i­den­tial quotes: Read my lips, no new taxes,I did not have sex­ual rela­tions with that woman, or I’ll have the nego­ti­a­tions tele­vised on C-SPAN.

Since pol­i­tics is busi­ness then the Pres­i­dent is like the CEO of Amer­ica and we are the share­hold­ers in the com­pany.  As share­hold­ers, shouldn’t we expect our CEO to lead by exam­ple and get us a higher return on our invest­ment  (insert your own econ­omy joke here.)

While the Pres­i­dent was out stump­ing for Martha Coak­ley dur­ing her Mass­a­chu­setts Sen­ate race, he not only embar­rassed him­self but also offended me and count­less other share­hold­ers.  Dur­ing a speech, Pres­i­dent Obama said that he did not know the oppo­nent or his record.  This is our CEO?  How could he go out and sup­port some­one and not know what their oppo­nent stands for or his record?  This shows an unac­cept­able lack of prepa­ra­tion and care.

Dur­ing this same speech, Pres­i­dent Obama mocked the oppo­nent, which crossed the line and offended me and count­less oth­ers.  It was in response to a cam­paign ad run by the oppo­nent, Scott Brown. His ad fea­tured him dri­ving around in his pickup truck and talk­ing to vot­ers show­ing off his com­mon man image.  Well, the Pres­i­dent said that every­one can run slick ads and every­one can buy a truck.

Mr. Pres­i­dent, I guess you haven’t noticed the econ­omy lately maybe you’ve been pre­oc­cu­pied with health care.  Well, I can­not buy a truck.  Between two kids in col­lege, a strug­gling busi­ness and try­ing to keep the roof over our head and food on the table, a truck, new or used, is some­thing my hus­band or I could not qual­ify for.  So, no, not any­body can buy a truck and I’m sure I’m not alone in this.

The President’s attempt at humor blew up in his face and should have been averted all together.  I under­stand that he is doing his best to sup­port his party, but as the Pres­i­dent he should remain impar­tial towards the opponent.

What does this polit­i­cal rant have to do with eti­quette?  Every­thing!  Since pol­i­tics is big busi­ness and the Pres­i­dent is our CEO, he needs to adhere to the rules of busi­ness eti­quette and he has failed mis­er­ably.  He has spo­ken ill of the com­pe­ti­tion.  He has been unpre­pared for a speech and he has offended his shareholders.

Before Pres­i­dent Obama makes another speech or his speech­writer, Jon Favreau, writes another speech, I will be more than happy to meet with them and give them and their staff a refresher course.

Jules Hirst is an eti­quette instruc­tor based in Los Ange­les, who believes it is never too late to make a last­ing impres­sion.  She teaches classes for chil­dren, teens and adults.  She is Pres­i­dent of Eti­quette Con­sult­ing Inc., an eti­quette con­sult­ing firm.  Learn more at Eti­quette Con­sult­ing Inc  She also is head of Hearts For The City, a non-profit orga­ni­za­tion teach­ing eti­quette and social skills to under­priv­i­leged chil­dren, fos­ter chil­dren and peo­ple re-entering the workforce.

Saluting Our Veterans

We at Pro­to­col 411 and For A Jul Pro­duc­tions would like to express our heart­felt thanks to all the mem­bers of the armed forces and their vet­er­ans.  Your sac­ri­fice and ded­i­ca­tion for this coun­try allow us to live our lives in free­dom.  Thank you for every­thing you do.  God bless you and God bless America.

 We also would like to take a moment and remem­ber the Fort Hood victims;

Lieu­tenant Colonel Juanita L. War­man, 55, of Havre De Grace, Mary­land.
Major Libardo Car­aveo, 52, of Wood­bridge, Vir­ginia.
Cap­tain John P. Gaffaney, 54, of San Diego, Cal­i­for­nia.
Cap­tain Rus­sell Sea­ger, 41, of Racine, Wis­con­sin.
Chief War­rant Offi­cer, Retired, Michael Cahill of Cameron, Texas.
Staff Sergeant Justin Decrow, 32, of Ply­mouth, Indi­ana.
Sergeant Amy Krueger, 29, of Kiel, Wis­con­sin.
Spe­cial­ist Jason Hunt, 22, of Till­man, Okla­homa.
Spe­cial­ist. Fred­er­ick Greene, 29, of Moun­tain City, Ten­nesee.
Spe­cial­ist Kham Xiong, 23, of St. Paul, Min­nesota.
Pfc. Aaron Nemelka, 19, of West Jor­dan, Utah.
Pfc. Michael Pear­son, 22, of Bolin­brook, Illi­nois.
Pri­vate Franch­eska Velez, 21, of Chicago, Illinois.

A TITLE IS EARNED.… How to Address a Retired Lt Col


Fox News Channel’s The Five, co-host Bob Beckel expressed his dis­plea­sure with Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Allen West’s com­ments about the Democ­rats at the Lin­coln Day Din­ner.  Mr. Beckel con­tin­u­ously referred to Rep­re­sen­ta­tive West as Mr. West while crit­i­ciz­ing his views.  Co-host Eric Bowl­ing cor­rectly pointed out to Beckel that he should be refer­ring to Allen West as Rep­re­sen­ta­tive or Lt Col Allen West because he had earned both titles.

Here is what eti­quette states:

Although Rep­re­sen­ta­tive or Congressman/Congresswoman are not tra­di­tional hon­orific titles, they do express the person’s cur­rent posi­tion and can be used to refer to the person.

The for­mal form of Mr. (name) or Ms. (name) should be used when address­ing an enve­lope as shown below.

Enve­lope, offi­cial:
The Hon­or­able
(Full name)
United States House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives

The proper form for Lieu­tenant Colonel would be Lt Col with­out peri­ods.  You do not need to use Retired unless you were address­ing an offi­cial enve­lope.  In which case you should use “…

Clark­son, USAF Retired” or “…Clark­son, USAF Ret.”

See exam­ples below for the dif­fer­ences between an offi­cial enve­lope and a social envelope.

For­mal forms for an “offi­cial” enve­lope would be:
        Lieu­tenant Colonel  Joe M. Clark­son, USAF, Retired
                and Mrs. Clark­son
For­mal forms for a “social” enve­lope would be:
        Lieu­tenant Colonel  Joe M. Clark­son
                and Mrs. Clark­son

       Lt Col Joe M. Clark­son
                and Mrs. Clark­son

Whether you agree or dis­agree with some­one, you should show them the proper respect by refer­ring to them using the title(s) they have earned.

International Protocol: Avoiding a “Sticky Wicket”

Before con­duct­ing busi­ness in for­eign coun­tries, it is impor­tant to famil­iar­ize your­self with the cus­toms and cul­tures of that coun­try. What is accept­able here in the United States may be taboo in that coun­try. By prepar­ing ahead of time, you will lessen the risk of embar­rass­ing your­self and stick­ing your foot in your mouth and poten­tially dam­ag­ing your busi­ness rela­tion­ship. Pres­i­dent Obama is cur­rently mak­ing his first offi­cial visit to Aus­tralia and kudos to him for tak­ing the time to famil­iar­ize him­self with some com­mon jar­gon. Dur­ing a speech at the Par­lia­ment House in Can­berra, Aus­tralia, Pres­i­dent Obama worked in Aus­tralian jar­gon terms like ear­bash­ing and sticky wick­ets while talk­ing about the rela­tion­ship between the United States and Aus­tralia. Hav­ing used these jar­gon terms cor­rectly, Pres­i­dent Obama has shown that he prides him­self in prepar­ing him­self for busi­ness in other coun­tries and hope­fully this will improve our for­eign pol­icy and help get us out of our sticky eco­nomic situation.


A big THANK YOU to our heroes this Veterans Day



Veterans Day_CourageWith today being Vet­er­ans Day, we need to take a moment to pay our respects to all the cur­rent and for­mer mem­bers of the armed forces. These heroes have taken time away from their fam­i­lies to pro­tect the free­doms we enjoy each and every day.

Vet­er­ans Day began as Armistice Day and was a day to honor those who fought in World War I. It was called Armistice Day because it rec­og­nized the anniver­sary of the armistice that brought an end to World War I on Novem­ber 11, 1918. It was later changed to Vet­er­ans Day in 1954 because the armed forces had been through World War II and the con­flict in Korea and the gov­ern­ment wanted to make sure to honor these heroes as well.

So, spend a minute and be thank­ful that these heroes have sac­ri­ficed so much for all of us.

God Bless and God Bless America.