Tragically Hip's Tragic News Aims for Maximum $$$

          Amid the news this week that Gord Downie, the lead singer of the Canadian band, The Tragically Hip, has terminal brain cancer, it's worth noting that the group shamelessly used Downie's illness as a gimmick to promote and sell its new record and upcoming concert tour; and to manipulate fans into spending their money. 
         Many media reports and fans have rightly and appropriately expressed their condolences and well-wishes for Downie. The news of his diagnosis surely must be tragic for him and his family and friends, for his bandmates, and for the group’s fans.
Selling Tickets and CDs Key to Cancer Announcement
         Yet, on closer inspection, the timing of the news of Downie's cancer diagnosis seems crass and commercial since it was clearly choreographed to coincide with the announcement of the band's new concert tour; to make as much money as possible for the group before Downie dies.
Skepticism Warranted
         We can be forgiven for being skeptical about the timing of the news of Downie’s illness, because it was followed just one day later by the announcement of the group's new record and summer 2016 concert tour--which has been referred to in some media as a ‘farewell tour.’      
         The concert tour seems mainly meant to support the release of the group’s latest record. This is understandable, since The Tragically Hip is a business entity, and like all businesses, the group is in business to make money, in addition to music.
Commercialism Integral to Cancer News
         Ultimately, though, the timing of this week’s announcement of Downie’s diagnosis is questionable and can reflect badly on Downie and The Tragically Hip as a whole.
         This is because the formal news of Downie’s illness initially seemed intended only as a thoughtful and respectful gesture to notify the group’s fans about his illness. But the bloom wore off that rose the next day when the band announced its summer concert tour and upcoming release of its new CD.
         That's when it became clear that Downie's cancer news was obviously well-timed and expertly-planned to milk maximum money from fans—to prime fans to spend their money on the band's new CD and concert tickets; since news of the concert tour came just one day after word of Downie's cancer diagnosis.
         In this context, The Tragically Hip's unspoken message to fans in this week’s back-to-back announcements seems clear: put your money where your sympathy is.
Cashing in on Cancer Diagnosis     
         As a result, the band, and Downie in particular, seem to be crassly and cleverly cashing in on his illness as a new and inventive, albeit tragic way to promote this particular concert tour--which could be fans' last chance to see Downie and/or the group. 
         We can assume Downie approved this week’s public pronouncement of his cancer diagnosis, along with the group's announcement, the next day, of the band's summer 2016 concert tour in support of its new record.
Personal Adjustment Necessary        
          Those involved in announcing Downie's cancer news earlier this week said he actually got the diagnosis about six months ago, in December, 2015. 
          In fairness to Downie and his bandmates, before going public with his cancer diagnosis they all likely needed, wanted and deserved to have sufficient personal time to digest the diagnosis themselves first, before the public was told. No doubt they also needed time to notify family and friends, personally, before Downie’s illness became public knowledge.
Negative Optical Illusion      
         But the perceived ‘optics’ of this situation would have been more-positive if Downie’s diagnosis was publicized a few months ago, on its own, with no mention of this summer’s concert tour and new record.
         Then, this week’s news of the group’s concert tour and new record wouldn’t have gone hand-in-hand with news of Downie’s diagnosis, and wouldn’t seem meant to prey on fans’ sympathy for their money.

Jian Ghomeshi: The Psychology of Hiring a Lawyer

           As most news-followers will know by now, a reportedly tough female lawyer, Marie Henein, will be in court today to start defending her high-profile client, former CBC Radio host Jian Ghomeshi--charged with four counts of sexual assault and one charge of overcoming resistance by choking.
          The charges against Ghomeshi involve three women and will be tried by judge alone. The so-called optics in this case, or the way he and his legal team can be perceived or seen by others, and his possible reasons for hiring Henein as his lawyer, are interesting.

Is Being a Good Lawyer Enough?

Many published accounts of Henein, in various news stories over the past year, report she is tough and accomplished; a good lawyer. But are her professional abilities and qualifications the only reason Ghomeshi hired her, as opposed to having an equally-tough, accomplished, and good male lawyer?

Could Ghomeshi have other less-obvious reasons for wanting a woman to defend him against serious criminal charges of sexually assaulting and choking, especially when the complainants are other women?

No doubt Ghomeshi wanted and needed to have a top-notch criminal lawyer on his side defending him in court and in other legal venues. By all published accounts of Henein, she fits the bill in this regard. This is obviously critical, regardless of the outcome of his trial starting today.

Perception Important

There can be an important distinction and sometimes even a fine line--depending on various simple or complex factors--between whether Ghomeshi is actually guilty or not guilty of the charges of sexual assault and overcoming resistance by choking, and whether he is found guilty or not guilty of the charges in court.
          Either way, many people might think no woman in her right mind, even a crackerjack lawyer as Henein reportedly is, would even think of defending a man charged with sexually assaulting and choking other women.

By defending such a man, a female lawyer could be perceived by many other women and men as condoning that kind of alleged behavior by Ghomeshi against other women. Some people might even believe a female lawyer defending a man in his situation might tarnish her own personal and/or professional reputation.

Psychologically Intriguing

Most published accounts of Ghomeshi since he was charged with these criminal offences variously paint him as weird, controlling, narcissistic, talented behind a microphone, likeable, charming with an ability to help others feel comfortable speaking with him, insecure, cruel, and clever.

In these contexts, Ghomeshi’s apparent cleverness could have led him to consider the overall potential psychological benefits of fighting these criminal charges with a female lawyer, instead of with a male attorney. The former CBC host might have assumed he and a male lawyer could be perceived, in a court of law or in the court of public opinion, as having a ‘men against women’ defence.

Enter Marie Henein.

Hope and Perception

Since perception is important, including in courtrooms during trials, Ghomeshi will be hoping he will be perceived by the judge as not guilty of the four charges of sexual assault and one count of overcoming resistance by choking, involving three women.

When all is said and done, Ghomeshi’s hope for a positive outcome for him at his trial could be bolstered by the possible psychological advantages of having another woman, Henein, defending him.

 

              

Donald Trump: An Exercise in Exaggeration?

            Many political pundits and others who seem offended by recent questionable comments by Donald Trump, a candidate for the 2016 U. S. Republican presidential nomination, could be falling right into what might be Trump’s trap.

Those who are offended by some of Trump’s recent perceived negative comments about Muslims and about Hillary Clinton, the perceived front-runner for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, seem to believe he means what he says.

Yet, Trump might not really believe what he said or implied. He could be saying controversial things in an exaggerated way to ensure the media and others don’t take his candidacy for granted, and don’t forget about him.

All the Campaign’s a Stage

First, Trump claimed or suggested all Muslims should be barred from entering the United States, at least in the immediate future, in light of recent terrorist acts in the United States and elsewhere. In fairness, Trump did clarify he was not referring to Muslims who are residents of the United States; only non-U. S. resident Muslims seeking to enter the United States.

Then Trump made perceived distasteful remarks about an apparent lengthy bathroom break Clinton took during a recent debate. He also used a perceived derogatory sexual innuendo—saying she got “schlonged” in 2008--to remind people she lost the Democratic presidential nomination in that contest to Barack Obama.

Trump has since explained his comment about Clinton’s defeat in 2008 was not vulgar, and is merely a Yiddish term meaning she got badly beaten in that nomination contest.

Exaggeration for Attention?

Trump clearly knows how to use language effectively and could be exaggerating his actual thoughts and feelings, mainly to make a point, or to get attention. A key aspect of running for political office is acting and performing for audiences. Some candidates sometimes say things that should not necessarily be taken seriously. Some candidates say things that seem controversial to get attention for the candidate, or to draw attention to a specific cause or situation.

While Trump’s comments about Muslims and Clinton are disconcerting to many people, he could have carefully planned his questionable comments and exaggerated for various reasons: 1) to make a point about the quality of border security in the United States; 2) to get attention for himself so people don’t forget about him; or 3) to make a point that candidates in national political debates should be better-prepared—personally and professionally.

Possible Insecurity

Notwithstanding Trump’s brashness and confidence, he also might make seemingly outlandish comments about others because sometimes he might feel somewhat inadequate running for president in the company of experienced politicians. If so, he might sometimes feel the need to ‘stir the pot’ with outrageous comments to remind people about his campaign.

In this context, Trump might sometimes feel the need to pull the rug out from under his competitors, or to wildly exaggerate some claims—such as his perceived derogatory claims about Muslims and Hillary Clinton--to make a point; to remind everyone he is still in the picture.

With these kinds of possibilities in mind, the kerfuffle over Trump’s recent remarks about Muslims and Clinton might be much ado about nothing

No Shrinking Violet

Clearly, Donald Trump is not shy. He seems intelligent. He is a showman who seems to thrive on attention. He knows he needs to act and perform on the campaign trail. He knows he has to sometimes say controversial things to get attention for himself; or to draw attention to situations some others might avoid because they might fear ‘bad press’ or ‘negative voter feedback.’

As a businessman and would-be politician, Trump also knows he has to be more-interesting to the media and to the public than his fellow candidates for the Republican presidential nomination. He knows he has to intentionally set himself apart from other contenders in his party--and from Hillary Clinton, the perceived frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for the presidency.

Intentional Exaggeration?

What better ways for Trump to achieve these goals than by presenting himself in a highly-exaggerated way as a racist and a misogynist—perhaps to make a point--when he might not be either one?

Yet, Trump seems so secure and comfortable with himself, no doubt because of confidence derived in part from his apparent vast personal wealth, that he seems unafraid to make himself a target of disrepute to get attention.

 

The Senator Speaks: Mike Duffy Had an Option

As Senator Mike Duffy started his own testimony this week, in his fraud trial, he unwittingly evoked the withering verbal attack by Progressive Conservative leader Brian Mulroney on Liberal leader John Turner in 1984. In a televised debate Turner, the newly-minted prime minister following Pierre Trudeau’s retirement, was assailed by Mulroney for finalizing some controversial Liberal patronage appointments made—but not finalized—by Trudeau before the former P.M. left office.    

     Mulroney famously told Turner he had a choice, or an option to say ‘no,’ and that he could have refused to finalize Trudeau’s patronage appointments. By many accounts, Turner never had a reasonable chance of winning that election after Mulroney reprimanded him as he did.

Duffy Could Have Said ‘No’

As most followers of the news know, Senator Mike Duffy is facing a slew of criminal charges relating to his allegedly fraudulent expense claims. In the many months leading up to his trial, Duffy, on his own and through his lawyers, has consistently seemed to blame others for his current misfortunes, instead of accepting responsibility for his own behaviors—and instead of acknowledging he largely contributed to his own present predicament. In this context, Duffy has always implied he had no choice in being named to the senate, and that he had to accept the senate appointment. In fact, he did have a choice: he could have said ‘no.’

If Duffy had exercised his prerogative and declined Harper’s senate appointment, he could have preserved his previous generally respectable reputation, he could have saved himself a lot of presumed heartache and aggravation, and he could have prevented the rest of us from being subjected to this sad excuse for a story for so long, so far.

Throughout this whole sorry mess, Duffy has intimated he was reluctantly forced into accepting a seat in the Senate, representing the Conservative Party, after being appointed in 2008 by former Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Yet, was Duffy really the reluctant senator? Various media reports over the past several months indicate he had, more than once, lobbied at least one previous prime minister to be named to the senate.

High Ambitions

In reports of Duffy’s first day of testimony he appeared to portray himself as some sort of unsophisticated, academically-uneducated rube from Prince Edward Island. In fact, for many years Duffy had been a successful broadcast journalist living and working in Ottawa, and, by many other less-fortunate people’s standards, he was living the high life and travelling far and wide in his work. But according to various news reports, in Duffy’s first day of his own long-awaited testimony this week, he seemed to be looking for pity and sympathy.

To Be (A Senator) or Not to Be

Many media reports say Duffy initially told Harper, before being appointed to the senate, that Conservatives would not be pleased with his appointment as a Tory senator since he, Duffy, was not a Conservative. Reports of Duffy’s court testimony indicate Harper told him to not worry about Conservatives’ complaints in that regard, and they would ‘get over it.’

Ultimately, Duffy was appointed as a senator representing the Conservative Party. Since Duffy accepted Harper’s senate appointment, supposedly against Duffy’s own better judgement, he can be perceived as opportunistic, ethically and morally-challenged, and driven by ambition, greed, ego, and insecurity. Perhaps he perceived the senate appointment as the culmination of his previous efforts to be successful and famous, and as a way for him to feel and seem important.

Choices

Through it all, from the beginning of this sordid situation, presumably, Duffy had a choice, or an option: 1) he could accept Harper’s senate appointment, representing the Conservative Party—even though Duffy says he told the former prime minister he was not even a Conservative; or 2) he could just say ‘no.’ In this regard, Duffy can be perceived as being the author of his own current misfortunes—including his criminal court trial over alleged fraudulent expense claims. Duffy easily could have avoided all of this by simply saying he would not sit in the senate as a Conservative because it was not right, since he wasn’t a Tory.

You Had an Option, Sir

Is Duffy guilty of any or all of the fraud charges he is facing? The court will decide that. Is Duffy guilty of bringing all of this on himself? Is he right to seem to be blaming everyone else except himself for the mess he’s in? If he hadn’t accepted the senate appointment, and made other choices, would his personal and professional reputations be suffering as they likely are now?

In this context, Brian Mulroney’s scathing rebuke of John Turner in 1984, for finalizing former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau’s cushy patronage appointments, echoes loud and clear: You had an option, sir. Duffy could have said ‘no’ to being a Conservative senator, and avoided his current legal troubles. Instead he said ‘yes’ to the senate appointment and got himself into his present predicament.

  

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May's Vulgarity

Much has been made recently about federal Green Party leader Elizabeth May’s performance at the annual Press Gallery Dinner in Ottawa on May 9, 2015. The dinner lets politicians poke fun at themselves and at the media in a good-hearted way, to let them show they don’t necessarily dislike each other.

In the aftermath of the dinner, much has also been made by commentators, and by May herself, of her weak attempts at being funny at the dinner in her overall on-stage performance--most of which the general public never saw. Yet, in seeming to focus on these aspects of May’s performance, she appears to ignore, or at least downplay, her public crudity and vulgarity at the microphone.

The Leader's True Colors?
In a film clip widely-broadcast, the Green Party’s May showed what might be her true colors: she crudely proclaimed into the microphone, on-camera, that Omar Khadr, the former so-called child soldier who was released on bail from prison last week, has “more class than the whole f------ Cabinet.” 

Presumably May was alluding to the federal government’s ongoing efforts to keep Khadr locked up, and to prevent him from being released on bail. Mercifully, May was finally dragged from the stage and microphone—figuratively—by a member of that “f------ Cabinet,” Lisa Raitt, who purportedly is also one of May’s friends.

Bad Behavior
In the film clip showing May making her crude comment about the federal Cabinet, she looked and sounded mean and mean-spirited, and she also looked drunk; or at least as though she’d had too much to drink.

Since then, though, May has said she wasn’t drunk at the microphone but conceded she had been drinking to some extent beforehand. Of course she might be right, but from my experience most people who are, or were drunk when they did something wrong, usually deny they were drunk.

One More for the Road?
In addition, Rick Mercer, the noted comedian/commentator, was quoted on Twitter as saying May wasn’t drunk: “I sat w @ElizabethMay @ Gallery dinner as did @TonyclementCPC - she wasn't drunk. She was tired & falling asleep in her soup.#longnight”

No doubt Mercer’s intentions are good in defending May, but how can he know she wasn’t drunk? Can Mercer know for sure that May did not drink before the dinner?  
In fact, some people can be drunk but don’t look as though they are. And some people who have a low tolerance for alcohol could be drunk and could seem drunk after drinking very little alcohol.
If May did drink before arriving at the dinner, and then consumed more alcohol at the dinner, she could have been drunk or at least 'under the influence' at the microphone in using poor judgment, crudity, and vulgarity to compare Khadr to the "whole f------- Cabinet." 

Excuses, Excuses
A key problem with May’s attempt to explain her behavior, presumably including her crude and vulgar crack about the “whole f------ Cabinet,” is she keeps making excuses for her inexcusable behavior—all the while claiming she’s not making excuses. 
Thus, May seemed to downplay and ignore her specific vulgar comment comparing Khadr to the federal Cabinet--which was in the short film clip that was widely-broadcast.

May claims she was sleep-deprived and had a cold, which she suggests were the reasons her performance wasn't funny. In saying this she implied her crude crack comparing Khadr to the "whole f------- Cabinet" was also meant to be funny. 
This kind of thinking, in itself, seems evidence of at least May's poor judgment, and possibly her immaturity as well. Regardless, when she attributes her 'performance' to sleep deprivation and having a cold she seems to be making excuses for what she did and said, even though she claims she isn't making excuses.
An Honest Mistake?

Since May's public crudity and vulgarity about the “whole f-------- Cabinet,” she has tried to portray herself as the one person in the House of Commons who is on the fast-track to sainthood: “I never heckle. I never swear. So, I had gotten the idea that it would be funny skit material if I was different from how I really am," she said (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/elizabeth-may-s-press-gallery-dinner-speech-will-haunt-her-experts-say-1.3070377).

Sadly, this seems like yet another excuse May is using in trying, unsuccessfully, to convince the rest of us she isn’t making excuses for her behavior. She has also tried, to no avail, to be convincing in saying she accepts full responsibility for her behavior. 
Unfortunately, May doesn't seem to realize that in using excuse after excuse, she appears to accept little or no responsibility for what she did.

Alberta’s Opie Takes Toys and Goes Home

When Jim Prentice quit as party leader-Alberta Premier and as a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) after his Conservatives were ousted from power in Tuesday’s election by the New Democratic Party (NDP), he behaved a lot like little Opie, the son of Sheriff Andy Taylor, in the beloved 1960s television sitcom, The Andy Griffith Show.

Prentice was re-elected in his own riding, but the once-powerful Tories in Alberta were relegated to third-party status.

One national news report on election night said Prentice resigned his positions and went home even before all of the votes were counted. “My contribution to public life is now at an end,” Prentice nobly told supporters Tuesday night. “It’s been a great privilege to serve” (http://www.cbc.ca/news/elections/alberta-votes/jim-prentice-resigns-after-orange-wave-sweeps-alberta-1.3062789).

In resigning so quickly, Prentice's unspoken message was ‘If I can’t be Premier anymore, if I can’t be number one, then I’m taking my toys and going home.”

By resigning almost immediately, Prentice acted like Opie in the Griffith show, in the episode ‘A Medal for Opie.’ Here, Opie, played by future Oscar-winning movie director Ronny Howard, competes unsuccessfully in the 50-yard dash, in the annual Boys’ Day races.
The Opie Factor

Opie, like Prentice, believed victory was his. In fact, Opie comes in last, and plods dejectedly off the track—head bowed, heading home, without watching the winner of his race get the medal Opie wanted. His pa, Andy, watches silently. 

Later, at home, Andy asks Opie why he left the track so quickly after losing the race. “I didn’t win. I didn’t win,” Opie moaned. Andy reassures him, saying at least Opie was “in there trying.” Opie, sulking, sprawled on the couch, replies, disheartened: “They don’t give you no medal for trying.”

Andy admits winning is nice but tells Opie "it’s more important to know how not to win…you could’ve been a nice loser—they call it sportsmanship…You got to learn how to take disappointment…You come up smiling, you’re a good loser. The other way’s being a bad loser…It don’t take courage to be a winner. It does take courage to be a good loser…”

Seems like Sore Loser
Like Opie, Jim Prentice seemed like a sore loser by going home apparently before the final results were tallied. He also appeared to demonstrate poor sportsmanship by resigning even his re-election as MLA in his own riding, seemingly because he couldn't be premier anymore.
Like unhappy Opie when he lost his 50-yard dash, Prentice probably felt badly after losing his job as premier, even though he was still elected in his own district. After all, when Prentice left his job as a federal Conservative Member of Parliament (M.P.) in Ottawa about a year ago he might have imagined being ‘King of Alberta’ indefinitely, since Alberta’s Tories had been in power for nearly 50 years.

Defeated by Arrogance?

In governing Alberta before the election did Prentice let himself be governed by hubris, arrogantly taking his party's historical popularity for granted? Did he naively think his party would continue winning elections endlessly even after bringing in his so-called ‘bad news budget’ and raising taxes before calling the provincial election?

Bad Loser

After Tuesday’s election in Alberta at least Prentice congratulated his opponents on their victories, according to Robin Urback (The National Post, May 6, 2015)--unlike Opie who ignored his friends' race wins.
Yet, Prentice's overall unspoken message, especially in resigning his own newly re-elected seat in his own riding on election night, was: 'If I can't be the boss I don't want to play anymore.' 
Like Opie who demonstrated poor sportsmanship when he lost his race, Prentice showed he's a bad loser. 

In fairness, after Prentice’s Tories lost their status as the governing party in Alberta's election, he could have been in shock, especially after decades of Conservative rule. But how does he justify resigning his own newly-re-elected MLA's seat--possibly before the final election results were even in?
While lttle Opie went home as soon as he lost his race largely because he hadn’t yet learned about good sportsmanship, what was Prentice's excuse? As a supposedly mature politician he should be able to be gracious in defeat. Yet, by quitting so quickly, even his own re-elected MLA's seat, Prentice implied--as immature Opie did--that being 'number one' was the only acceptable outcome of the election.

Does Over Mean Over?

While Prentice declared on election night that his contribution to public life is now over, this might not actually be the case for someone who has portrayed himself as an opportunist. 
As a federal M.P. for Alberta he was a relatively small fish in the big pond of Ottawa. By quitting that post before his term was up to be a provincial premier, Prentice was suddenly the big fish in the smaller pond of Alberta. 
Now he has quit his newly re-elected post of MLA in his own Alberta district, before even starting his new term in that role. 
In these contexts is Prentice necessarily out of public life for good, as he dramatically proclaimed on election night? Or could he be enticed to be opportunistic yet again, depending on the situation? 
At least two scenarios seem possible:

1) Prentice could run again in the upcoming federal election—if he now thinks being a small fish in the big Ottawa pond is better than not being in the public eye at all; or

2) Prime Minister Stephen Harper might cushion fellow Tory Prentice’s Alberta election loss with a cushy patronage post somewhere, with all the associated perks; which would contradict Prentice's assertion that his “contribution to public life is now at an end” (http://www.cbc.ca/news/elections/alberta-votes/jim-prentice-resigns-after-orange-wave-sweeps-alberta-1.3062789).  

But before Prentice does anything, he should merely ask himself one question: What would Opie do?

 

On My Friends Brad and Angie

This week, clearly the most-notable world event, by most reasonable standards, was the wedding between Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt.

Secret Invitations

As most people in the world will know by now, the wedding actually took place on Saturday, Aug. 23, 2014 on the Pitt-Jolie estate in France. As you can imagine, guests were there by invitation only. I was lucky enough to get one, but like all who were present that day, I was sworn to secrecy. Now, though, with the release today of the announcement by Brad and Angie about their recent nuptials, all can be told.

Conflicting Commitments

Although I was glad to be invited to the wedding last Saturday, actually going there, on that particular day, posed a bit of a problem and came at a cost: I had to lie to a member of my family. Social butterfly that I am, I was also invited to a birthday party the same night for one of my sisters, Sue, whose birthday was actually the next day, August 24. 

I had to make a choice, and unfortunately, for Sue anyway, Brad and Angie won out because they invited me to their wedding first, before I got the invitation to Sue’s birthday party. Because I was sworn to secrecy about the wedding in France, I had to concoct an excuse to explain to Sue why I couldn’t go to her birthday party. 

I fed her a line about not wanting to be up late because it might disrupt my sleeping pattern. I think Sue bought it and am glad she didn’t press me to explain clearly why I couldn’t go to her party. If that had happened, I might have felt compelled to tell her I had to go to the wedding in France instead, since Brad and Angie invited me to their party first.

Cautiously Understanding

From my association with Brad and Angie over the years, I think they would have understood if I’d accidentally blabbed about their upcoming wedding. But they wouldn’t have been happy about it. If I had told anyone about their marriage plans ahead of last Saturday’s ceremony, I don’t think Brad and Angie would have expelled me from their ‘inner circle’ of close friends and advisors. 

But they might have lost some trust in me and could have been reluctant to have me at their estate in France where the wedding was held, and at their other homes and private places in the months and years to come--where we all have enjoyed pleasant times together.

Spoil the Surprise

Furthermore, if I had let it slip over the past few weeks that Brad and Angie were finally going to get married last Saturday, the actual wedding itself likely wouldn’t have been the news sensation it was today--nearly a week after the event. That’s because secrecy was the order of the day. They clearly wanted to have control, in a good way, over this important event in their lives, and over who knew about it, and over when word of the wedding actually got out.

Everything is Relative

As one of their friends, I have watched in awe over the years as Brad and Angie have shown patience with media types pestering them with endless tiresome questions about when or if they were ever going to get married—as if their potential wedding would somehow suddenly put an end to world hunger.

Tit-for-Tat

Of course being patient with reporters repeatedly asking that all-important wedding question also helped Brad and Angie to help themselves achieve some of their goals. After all, at those times they usually had one or more projects—such as films, or humanitarian causes--to ‘sell’ or promote to the public.

So, by being polite in answering reporters’ seemingly endless wedding questions, Brad and Angie were also clever enough to know the importance of the old adage, ‘you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours.’ In other words, they knew if they were patient with reporters’ queries about a possible wedding, reporters generally would help promote the movie or other cause Pitt and Jolie were plugging.

Secrecy Paramount

Through it all, though, as one of their ‘insiders,’ I had one major concern: I knew I couldn’t let it slip to anyone that Brad and Angie were going to be married last Saturday. If that had happened, I surely would have ruined the surprise they wanted to spring on the world, which they did today with the announcement of their nearly week-old wedding. And of course if I had spoiled their surprise, I might have fallen out of favor with them, even temporarily.

You Might Say I'm a Dreamer...

None of that happened, however, so there’s nothing to worry about. In fact, as it is, the only thing I can be accused of is having a vivid and overactive imagination, which some might say is abundantly clear here in my current thoughts about this current affair.

Ah, Politics...Yet Another Alleged Scandal

The latest flurry in Ottawa—not related to falling snowflakes--is intriguing. This time, mercifully, the kerfuffle isn’t about senators ripping off Canadian taxpayers by filing inappropriate and unjustified expense claims.

This time, Defence Minister Rob Nicholson and the federal Conservative government have accused former military general Andrew Leslie of ripping off Canadian taxpayers for his final moving expense claims after recently retiring from the military.
Leslie apparently is now safely ensconced in the federal Liberal party’s fold as an advisor to federal Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau. They even hugged each other on-stage at the federal Liberals' convention late last week in Montreal.
Leslie is also reportedly the presumed candidate in a safe Liberal riding in Ottawa in the next federal election, next year.

Military Moving Expenses

After retiring from the military recently, Leslie billed his final moving expense claims to the federal government.  
Nicholson argues that Leslie, therefore, got Canadian taxpayers to foot the bill for his final moving expenses, which apparently can include costly real estate fees, instead of paying his own way back to ‘civvy street.’

But Leslie claims current military regulations governing moving expenses—now apparently overseen by Nicholson—allow all retiring military personnel, regardless of rank or job function, to bill the government for their final moving expenses after retiring--as long as the retiree has at least 20 years’ military service.

Sweet Revenge?

Some media reports note that before Leslie joined the federal Liberals he approached the federal Conservatives, and/or was approached by the Conservatives about siding with them in the next federal election.

Various media reports suggest Nicholson and the Tories are miffed that Leslie went to the Liberals instead, allegedly prompting Nicholson to attack him for his moving expenses as revenge. 
This scenario could have some merit, since some news reports indicate that other retiring military personnel with at least 20 years' service apparently also billed their final moving expenses to the government as Leslie did. Leslie, however, seems to be the only one who has been publicly castigated by Nicholson for doing so.

Indignance

In verbally attacking Leslie’s character and ethics—or lack thereof—Nicholson has seemed outraged, pointing out with all the bluster he could muster that Leslie should have paid his own final moving expenses after retiring from the military. 

Predictably, Leslie seems indignant and offended that his apparent good name is being dragged through the mud by Nicholson and those 'terrible Tories.'

Free Publicity

In fact, though, Leslie should thank his lucky stars for the free publicity and advertising he’s been getting from Nicholson and the federal government. 
If Leslie is going to be running for the Liberals in the next federal election, he should be grateful for Nicholson’s ‘spear campaign’ against him. This is because I suspect few people among the general public, outside the military and Leslie’s own family, acquaintances, and friends, have even heard of him before.

What better way for Liberal Leslie to be largely introduced to the voting public than by being publicly attacked by the federal government, with major media organizations also helping by reporting on the apparent controversy?

Conservatives Helping Liberals 
In addition, thanks to Nicholson, the federal Liberals should be thankful they won’t necessarily have to spend a bundle to introduce their apparent ‘star candidate’ to the general public if Leslie runs for them next year in Ottawa. Nicholson and the governing Conservatives have already done that for the Liberals.

And if Leslie campaigns against a Conservative in the next federal election, a Leslie victory would be sweet for him and his Liberal party, considering he was previously largely unknown before Nicholson gave him a national identity and platform.    
Lack of Foresight?
If Nicholson is as smart as he likely thinks he is, he’ll use more forethought the next time he tries to smear another potential politician, because his attack tactics on Leslie could backfire on Nicholson and the Conservatives in a big way.
In this context, did Nicholson not consider the potential payoff to Leslie, in terms of free name recognition and other possible positive publicity--especially if Leslie does run for the Liberals in the federal election next year? 

Scrambled or Over-Easy?

Ultimately, if Leslie is right that his final moving expenses after retiring from the military were ‘by the book,’ and if there really is no scandal, contrary to what Nicholson implies, perhaps Nicholson and his Conservative cronies will end up with proverbial egg on their faces. 
If so, they might realize they didn’t think far enough ahead, before publicly attacking the former general for his alleged financial indiscretion over his moving expenses.