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.

Toronto Mayor Rob Ford Strikes Again

As the latest incriminating video of Toronto Mayor Rob Ford shows, he has once again made a monkey out of his big brother Doug, a Toronto city councilor and the mayor’s most-diehard public supporter.  
Doug Ford’s loyalty and support for the city’s chief executive buffoon are admirable. But surely, even councilor Ford must see the futility of continuing to publicly support his baby brother.  

Yet, understandably, Doug Ford clearly feels the need to protect the mayor at all costs, and seems to publicly ignore his brother's many personal failings.

Both brothers seem to believe Rob Ford’s negative behaviors in his personal life do not and should not reflect badly on his public persona as mayor, or on his ability to perform his job as mayor, or on the way in which he is perceived by the general public.

New Video, Old Behavior

For the uninitiated, the latest video casting aspersions on the mayor’s character apparently was surreptitiously shot Monday night, Jan. 20, 2014 at a Toronto steakhouse by one of Rob Ford’s friends or companions and made available to the public. 

In the video Mayor Ford seems drunk or at least under the influence of alcohol or some other substance, in a rambling and curse-laden diatribe; partly against Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair, and using crude, gutter-level profanities.

Recap
Many Ford-watchers will recall Chief Blair publicly reporting late last year that Toronto police had obtained a much-discussed video of the mayor seemingly smoking what appeared to be crack cocaine.
In recent months Ford and at least one of his questionable cronies were put under surveillance by Toronto police and apparently the mayor was caught on surveillance video cavorting with alleged criminals and gangsters.
During that period, late last year, Rob Ford finally conceded what he had long denied: he had smoked crack cocaine once in a self-described ‘drunken stupor.’
But he seemed to believe smoking that illegal drug in a drunken daze didn’t really count, or wasn’t that significant, because he was drunk, and because he did it in his private time. Despite making many public apologies, he still seldom seemed to grasp that he shouldn’t be doing that at all.   
Self-Destructive Overtones
Perhaps, having another degrading video of himself filmed and publicly released this week by one of the mayor's ‘friends’ might finally lead Rob Ford to question the quality of some of the company he keeps; to question why he needs and wants to behave in ways that are inherently self-destructive personally and professionally; and, maybe, to finally stop putting himself in such situations. 
This latest incident comes just a couple of months after the mayor swore publicly he had sworn off alcohol in his own “Jesus moment” of supposed self-awareness--an apparent realization that he needed to clean up his personal life. 

He implied he was finally going to start behaving, publicly and personally, like an emotionally-mature and responsible elected official. 
Deny, Deny, Deny
Remarkably but also not surprisingly, throughout this never-ending Ford fiasco the Toronto mayor’s older brother Doug has been, publicly, his staunchest supporter. Even earlier this week, after the latest video of an apparently drunk Mayor Ford surfaced, his big brother was in denial about the mayor.  
Doug Ford did what he has done countless times before: disavowed the naysayers and vowed to reporters that this particular video of his apparently inebriated little brother could not have been shot on Monday night, Jan. 20. 
Doug Ford is reported to have said he spoke to the mayor around 10:30 p.m. on Monday and all seemed fine. He also affirmed, the day after the steak house incident, that his brother Rob was off booze “100 per cent” and would not have been drinking the night before. 
No Mistake
Not long afterwards, though, Rob Ford again proved his brother wrong in this regard, and proved his brother's apparent trust and belief in him were again misplaced. 

The mayor admitted publicly he had been drinking the night before, thereby destroying Doug’s earlier public assertion that his brother would not have been drinking.   

Caretaker?
In these contexts, the mayor seems content to let his older brother play the loyal sap he seems to be--or at least this seems to be the role Doug Ford has adopted.   

On one hand, Doug Ford’s constant denials of his brother’s repeated misbehaviors suggest he does not know the mayor as well as he would have others believe. 
Or, maybe Doug Ford knows exactly what his brother is like, especially after drinking, and just feels an unrelenting familial need to protect him and clean up the messes.
Some might say this scenario could be symptomatic of dysfunctional aspects of a family in which one family member instinctively adopts the role of caretaker: to elevate him/herself above the madness; to protect the family’s ‘offender(s);’ to protect the family’s overall reputation; and to pretend there is nothing wrong. 

Ultimately, both or all parties implicitly contribute to the overall problem and seem complicit in perpetuating the troubling situation.    
Problem, What Problem?
Similarly, just as Doug Ford seems in denial about his brother’s public personal failings, Rob Ford seems to deny that his negative personal behaviors should adversely reflect on his public persona as mayor. He seems to deny that he has an inherent responsibility as mayor to behave responsibly in public and in private. 
Admittedly, this could seem like an impossible task for one who repeatedly behaves appallingly in private, as videos apparently filmed by his 'friends' show he has done. 

Sadly, Rob Ford does not seem to see or accept that his personal behavior is inexplicably intertwined with his professional role as mayor of Canada’s largest city. 
Personal Insight Seems Lacking
Throughout it all, Rob Ford hasn't appeared to realize or care that he has been setting a bad example as Toronto’s elected mayor, who is almost always in the public eye. 

Many of his public activities, and some private ones, have been intensely scrutinized by reporters and others, partly to see how or if he could top his most-recent embarrassment with a bigger one. 
When asked by reporters about his disturbing and possibly criminal behaviors, Ford has usually seemed to fall back on his now-familiar refrain: he is entitled to have a private life and what he did in his private life was nobody else’s business. 
Similarly, the day after the latest video of the seemingly inebriated mayor at the steak house surfaced earlier this week, Ford essentially gave the same old song-and-dance: what he does on his own time is none of anyone else’s business.  
Right but Wrong
Ford is right about that, but only to a point. He still seems unable or unwilling to admit and accept that as mayor, he is and should be held to a higher standard of public and private behavior than the ‘average’ person. He seems unwilling or unable to believe that his personal behavior reflects on his character and values, on his public image as Mayor of Toronto, and, by extension, on the city and its residents too.
In Perspective
Finally, falling off the proverbial wagon is not a crime and is not necessarily something about which the Toronto mayor has to be embarrassed. What does reflect badly on him, though, is his typical behavior after he has been drinking, which was on display again earlier this week in the latest video capturing him in all his crude and boorish glory.

To Steal or Not to Steal: That is the Question

Last week Chris Spence, the former Director of the Toronto District School Board (TDSB), spoke publicly for the first time about his plagiarism scandal that led to his resignation last January. He bemoaned the aftermath of the situation as “soul-destroying” and a “living hell” (Toronto Star, July 25, 2013).
Of course Spence brought on the mess himself by stealing others’ academic research and/or writings in the first place, in his 1996 doctoral dissertation--his major academic work as a student--from the University of Toronto. Apparently the jury is still out on whether his Ph.D. will be revoked.
Admits Plagiarizing
Spence admits to using others’ research and writings and including them in his own dissertation without acknowledging where he got those words and passages. In other words, Spence pretended others' research and writings were his own, apparently believing he had found an easy way to get his doctorate. 
Selling Books
Ultimately, Spence’s mea culpa last week for his academic plagiarism in 1996 seemed flimsy. His main concern seemed to be garnering sympathy, and promoting two books he supposedly co-wrote with his two children--which apparently will be self-published and, presumably, sold, in the fall of 2013. Each book “contains an admission of his mistakes with plagiarism” (Toronto Star, July 25, 2013).
In light of the book promotion aspect of Spence's sympathy sessions with reporters last week, his motives were questionable at best. Was he really trying to atone for his plagiarism? Or was he using the newspaper interviews to cleverly promote the books he has written with his children? Presumably time will tell if these two books are plagiarized too.
The Great Pretender
These days Spence is still pretending. His claims of being too busy with other projects to do his dissertation in an ethical way, and blaming others for his mistakes, suggest he's pretending that his role in his own plagiarism, in his own doctoral dissertation, was minimal compared to others such as his assistant(s). 
As a result, Spence continues to display the poor judgment, lack of character, and lack of professionalism that got him into this quagmire in the first place by cheating and stealing others' research and writings and pretending they were his.
Thankfully, though, unlike Spence, most people with a Ph.D. earn it the old-fashioned way, through their own honesty, diligence, persistence, and hard work.
Limited or Total Responsibility?
Notably, despite Spence's admitted plagiarism in his dissertation, last week he seemed unable or unwilling to unequivocally take full responsibility for his academic theft. 
Curiously, while Spence said he wasn’t trying to blame others, and claimed to not have any excuses for stealing others’ work in his dissertation, he blamed others and made excuses anyway.

“I’m not looking to point fingers, but did I write everything? Absolutely not…When I look back at the blogs, the speeches, the presentations, I’m going to say that a large, large percentage, you had support to get some of that work done. But I recognize that I approved everything, I signed off on everything…I never really had the kind of time that you need to sit down and put pen to paper…But I don’t have any excuses. I apologize unreservedly and categorically. I should have known better” (Chris Spence, Toronto Star, July 25, 2013).

His Work

Sadly, by blaming others for his academic sins, Spence doesn't seem to realize or care that the proverbial buck stops with him as the stated author of his dissertation. He should have done everything possible to ensure the academic integrity of his dissertation and to protect the reputation of his university where he was studying.
Even if an assistant made mistakes, Spence should have ensured the errors were found and fixed before the dissertation was finalized. After all, the dissertation was his.
Blaming Others Backfired
Ironically, in blaming others and making other excuses, and minimizing his responsibility in this fiasco--presumably to make him look good--Spence actually makes himself look worse: small, petty, and lacking in character. Of course stealing others’ research and writings for his dissertation makes him seem that way too. Maybe this is just the way Chris Spence is, at heart, although he and his supporters don't want to believe that. 
Last week Spence had a good chance to show or convince the media, and by extension the public as well, that he really is honorable, despite his academic plagiarism from 1996. Yet, when he blamed subordinates who reported to him and made excuses--even though he claimed to not be doing that--perhaps he really did show his true colors.
Academic Supervisor?
As a doctoral candidate at the University of Toronto in 1996 presumably Spence would have had an academic supervisor—likely a full-time faculty professor. Presumably, that professor would have guided Spence through the dissertation process, editing and approving the work at various stages before Spence had his examination to either pass or fail, and receive his Ph.D. or not.
Did Spence’s academic supervisor not detect any irregularities during the writing and research process? Did Spence's academic supervisor notice discrepancies such as possible plagiarism and were they brought to Spence's attention? Did Spence ignore a senior professor's advice to not plagiarize?
Other Plagiarizers 
In fairness, Chris Spence is not the first academic to steal others’ works and pretend they were his--as the following two examples show--and he likely won’t be the last.  
Martin Luther King, Jr.
One of the most-famous academic plagiarists was the renowned civil rights activist, the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., who was assassinated in Memphis in 1968. 
On October 11, 1991 the New York Times reported that a committee of scholars appointed by Boston University concluded, on that day, that King "plagiarized passages in his dissertation for a doctoral degree at the university 36 years ago." 
The committee said "there is no question" that King "plagiarized...by appropriating material from sources not explicitly credited in notes, or mistakenly credited, or credited generally and at some distance in the text from a close paraphrase or verbatim quotation" (http://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/11/us/boston-u-panel-finds-plagiarism-by-dr-king.html).

The committee said revoking King’s Ph.D. would serve no purpose.

Dean of Medical School, University of Alberta
In June 2011 Dr. Philip Baker resigned as Dean of the University of Alberta’s Medical School for plagiarizing a speech he gave at a graduation ceremony at the university. The National Post reported the speech was originally given by a noted surgeon, Atul Gawande, at a convocation address at Stanford University in California.
“The (original) speech was published in The New Yorker magazine last year and many had read it. One graduate said his brother found the original speech on The New Yorker website during the banquet and was following along with Dr. Baker word for word” (http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/06/17/university-of-alberta-medical-school-dean-resigns-after-plagiarizing-speech/).
To steal or not to steal: There really should be no question.

Rivalling Ripley

Once upon a time the fascinating tales of Ripley’s Believe it or Not signified stories that actually happened but were really just too hard to believe.

One of the latest narratives in the 'stranger than fiction' genre that comes to mind is the current claim by Canadian actor Jim Carrey that he can no longer support the violence in his new film, apparently scheduled for an August 2013 release.
Now Against Violence

The movie supposedly depicts violence, which Carrey claims to now disavow, even though he likely didn’t have any qualms about taking his paycheque, which was probably more money than most average people will ever see in their lifetimes.

In fairness, Carrey says he made the film about a month before the infamous bloodbath at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Connecticut in December. He implies he felt all right making the film, complete with its apparent violence, before the Sandy Hook shootings. Now, though, Carrey denounces the film’s violence. He says he’s not ashamed of the movie, “but recent events have caused a change in my heart" (http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/story/2013/06/24/jim-carrey-kick-ass-support-violence-gun-control.html).
Yet, why would Carrey not be ashamed of the film, especially if he believes, as he suggests he does, that the movie's violence might be harmful or offensive to children or others?

Motivation
When all is said and done,Carrey’s motives in his anti-violence message regarding his new movie are debatable, and his comments are worthy of being in the same league as Ripley’s Believe it or Not: we know he said these things, but his comments are hard to believe.
Consider Carrey’s profession: he’s an actor and comedian. When he makes movies he is making his living and his money by pretending. In this context, in Carrey's recent public comments denouncing the apparent violence in his new movie, he seems to be suggesting he does not want people to go and see the film.
The Art of Pretense
Carrey seems to be trying to convince us, or himself, that he doesn't support the movie. In fact, though, he could be pretending. Because he works in an industry where pretending is the name of the game, his condemnation of the apparent violence in his new film might be just an act; a gimmick to get people interested in the movie.
In other words, Carrey might be just pretending to be upset with the movie's apparent violence, to get people to pay attention to his film when it comes out in a month or so.
Worried
There is at least one other possible reason for Carrey's recent comments: perhaps he feels insecure about his own performance in the film and is worried about being criticized. If so, Carrey might be trying to prepare critics and audiences in advance, to lessen the potential backlash against him if they don't like his performance.  
Raising Questions
Regardless of Carrey's actual reasons for making his recent comments about his new movie, his remarks raise some questions about his honesty, ethics, and motives. For instance:

• If Carrey really objects so much to his new movie’s apparent violence why did he not demand his name be removed from the credits?

• Why did Carrey not return his paycheque, on principle and to prove he’s serious about his current claims denouncing the movie’s apparent violence?

• Why did Carrey not denounce the film’s apparent violence immediately after the Sandy Hook shootings, instead of doing so a matter of weeks before the movie’s release?

•  Why did Carrey not file an injunction against the movie’s production company to halt the release of the film?

• Could Carrey merely be ‘going through the motions’ of denouncing the movie’s violence, as a clever and carefully-planned marketing and promotional technique?

• Is Carrey actually doing a splendid job of promoting his new film to ensure it is seen by as many people as possible—ironically, by suggesting people should not see the violence in the movie?

Fact or Fiction
Ultimately, Carrey's recent remarks about the apparent violence in his new movie seem questionable. This is because when he condemns his new film's violence he also seems to suggest he does not support the movie, which supposedly comes out in a few weeks. 
Yet, in doing so, Carrey is actually promoting the film and getting the media and others to pay attention to it.
Believe it Or Not
In Carrey's own way, then, he could be trying to brace himself for a box-office smash or a dismal failure; or something in-between. And believe it or not, all of this might be a case of truth being stranger than fiction, since Carrey's recent comments could just be part of a marketing strategy. It's enough to make Ripley proud.

Lance-a-Lot Chat Raises Questions

By now, most people are likely at least somewhat aware of former champion cyclist Lance Armstrong’s recent ‘confessions’ to Queen Oprah. The details of his cycling sins and sanctions against him are well-known and don’t bear repeating here.

Yes, he told Oprah, he used performing enhancing steroids, other drugs and blood transfusions to help him race better than if he hadn't been a dope on dope. 

No, he would not have been the champion that he was, without the drugs. 

Yes, he was a bully and not very nice.

When asked by Oprah if he cheated, Armstrong waffled. He said he has looked up the definition of cheating in a dictionary and suggested he didn't really fit that particular definition--so he doesn't think he cheated in his dope-filled racing years. 

Purging for Profit?

When I first learned Armstrong was supposedly going to ‘tell all’ and bare his soul on national television, I wondered if this would all seem somehow anticlimactic since there already seems to be a mountain of evidence against him from his cheating cycling days; evidence that has already led to him losing all of his cycling awards.

What was there was going to be in all of this for him? Surely, I thought, he won’t publicly admit to the drugging allegations just out of the goodness of his heart; just to be a good guy. After all, he’s had a long time to do the ‘right thing’ and tell the truth if that, in fact, was his priority in talking with Oprah. So, why now?

Possibilities

Considering the confessional mode Armstrong seems in now, it helps to keep in mind that most celebrities—singers, actors, athletes, and other notables in the public eye—usually don’t ‘come clean’ about anything personal unless they have an agenda, hidden or otherwise.

They usually have something to gain, such as trying to enhance their reputation for some intangible reason, or to enhance their image because they have something tangible to sell—a book, movie, record, concert tour, or the like. Normally, the release of those kinds of products is typically timed to coincide with the person’s public confession, or at least sometime soon afterwards.

Penance or Propaganda?

With these things in mind, we can wonder about Armstrong’s recent cozy chat with Oprah. I imagined there surely would be something self-serving about whatever he said during the ‘O’ sessions. Then, shortly before the first segment of the interview aired, more than one online news site reported he wants to compete again, and apparently was hoping his public self-flogging would open the door for that to happen.

Ah ha, I thought, there it is: Armstrong might be hoping the authorities and public will sympathize with him for being so brave and honest about his cheating while cycling; which most other people suspected anyway. If so, he could be banking on the public and the authorities thinking he just made a few innocent mistakes and deserves another chance, so everyone will be on his side again, not against him anymore.

And all Armstrong had to do with Oprah was swallow his ego and pride a little and ‘open up,’ to use the current nauseating media lexicon for celebrity interviews-confessionals. I say ‘nauseating’ because when these folks ‘open up’ it’s almost always contrived when they have something to gain; like they’re pimping themselves out for profit.

Paying the Price

Shortly after reading about Armstrong’s apparent goal of competing professionally again, I also learned that a biographical movie about him is in the works. If so, will he benefit financially from the alleged proposed film? 

In confessing to Oprah was he laying the groundwork for upcoming publicity for the alleged film, to soften his image? If such a film is pending, Armstrong’s mea culpa via Oprah could be considered self-serving. 

Is the supposed film being produced by independent filmmakers who have no other connection to Armstrong? Is he involved in the production—and therefore potentially well-served by his act of contrition with Oprah?

Helping Hands

We also might wonder if Oprah actually sympathizes with Armstrong and was purposely trying to help him restore his tattered reputation—while knowing his appearance would also boost the supposed sagging image of her own OWN network—tit for tat? 

Oprah is known as a great sympathizer and recognizes a good T.V. moment when she smells one. She’s also an entertainer, not a hard-nosed journalist. So, her approach in speaking ‘candidly’ with Armstrong on national television might be different from that of an experienced journalist trying to get to the bottom of a story.   

More or Less

Regardless of the eventual merits or disadvantages of the recent Lance-a-Lot-Oprah session, we can wonder if Armstrong will or can stop there. Will he button his lip except perhaps to speak with authorities about his now-admitted drug use while cycling—to demonstrate he really wants to do the right thing by openly discussing that ugly part of his professional past during those years?

Or will he continue demonstrating that his actions seem designed to portray him as the victim—as when he previously sued and verbally attacked those who, we now know, correctly claimed he took performance enhancing drugs while cycling?

Turning a Page

Ultimately, will Lance Armstrong be so enthralled by the attention and publicity from his recent verbal dance with Oprah that he’ll want or need more of the same? 

Can we expect to see his ‘candid’ memoir—which might already be printed, under a blanket of secrecy--in bookstores soon, essentially timed in tandem with the ‘Oprah effect’? 

In this sense the last chapter of Armstrong’s time in the limelight likely hasn't been written yet.