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.

 

Justin Time?

By now, most people who pay even a smattering of attention to Canadian current events have read and heard the 'big' news: Justin Trudeau, the eldest son of former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and his wife Margaret, supposedly will announce on Oct. 2, 2012 he's going to run for the leadership of the federal Liberal party; with the ultimate goal of landing in the prime minister's office.

This political Trudeau has won two federal elections and been a member of parliament for about four years, representing the Quebec riding of Papineau.



                         QMI Agency File Photo

Savior Personified

By all accounts in various media, many people—including Justin Trudeau--seem to think Justin Trudeau, today's 'boy wonder' at the age of 40, is naturally meant to be Canada's next prime minister, the second coming and Messiah of the federal Liberal party rolled into one, the only person in the country with the wherewithal including the instant bankroll, the charisma, the 'boyish' good looks, and  the 'easy charm' to pull it off. His surname and paternal heritage don't hurt either.

Word to the Wise

But here is my free suggestion for Trudeau. Even if he has decided to run for the Liberal leadership, he still has time to change his mind; which he's already done various times anyway. What's once more?

Now that former Quebec Liberal Premier Jean Charest is out of office, the Quebec Liberal party is in transition and needs a new permanent leader to replace its present interim leader. Whoever eventually takes the reins of that party might easily topple the new minority Parti-Quebecois government led by Premier Pauline Marois; and become Premier of Quebec.

That could be a good place for Justin Trudeau, who seems to have high political aspirations, to get his political feet really wet, assuming his political philosophy meshes with that of the Quebec Liberal party. Afterwards, unlike now, he'd have some political and professional substance and clout before trying to become federal Liberal leader and prime minister before he's ready.

Unheeded?

Sadly, I realize there is a chance Trudeau will not take my unsolicited but generous advice that he should first seek the Liberal leadership and Premiership in Quebec. And if, as rumored, he does announce his candidacy next week for the federal Liberal leadership, it likely won't be a huge surprise to a lot of people.

Ready or Not?

There has been a lot said in various media about Trudeau's readiness or lack thereof for the federal Liberal leadership, about his overall professional experience or lack thereof, about comparisons between him and his celebrated dad who was prime minister for about 15 years, about his real motivation if he runs for the leadership and ultimately for prime minister, about his personal and political maturity or lack thereof, and his judgment.

Questionable Judgment?

Trudeau's judgment could hit him where it hurts, politically, if he does run for the Liberal leadership. If current news stories are right, ironically his so-called 'inner circle' of advisers includes young men and women who apparently advised two of the federal Liberal party's recent failed leaders--Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff. 

If correct, at first glance this seems like a recipe for failure for Trudeau. To a casual observer, those two former leaders seemed decent and likeable enough, albeit inept leaders. Did each of them disappear from the Liberal leader's office in almost no time, relatively speaking, partly because they got bad or misguided advice from the young men and women who apparently now are advising Justin Trudeau? 

If so, is Trudeau unwittingly sabotaging his chances of success if these advisers--who apparently could not secure success for two of the Liberal party's recent leaders—are now advising him on how to become Liberal leader and ultimately prime minister?

Maturity

Trudeau also still seems dogged by his childish rant in the House of Commons several months ago. That's when he called Peter Kent, the federal Environment Minister, a piece of excrement—except Trudeau used the common slang expletive, starting with 's' instead. 

Then there was the boxing match a few months back between him and Conservative Senator Patrick Brazeau to raise money for cancer research; adolescent machismo and showing off their bodies and bravado, albeit for a good cause. 
Diversion or Calling?
Many media pundits wondered what Trudeau has ever done to warrant elevating him to the office of Liberal Leader, and potentially the prime minister's office. Some point out that he taught for a while at a private high school in British Columbia some time ago. And apparently he was in graduate school at McGill University in Montreal for a while, pursuing a master's degree until he either dropped out or took a 'break' from his studies to run for political office.
Does this suggest Trudeau has trouble committing to professional endeavors? Or does it imply he knows he doesn't have to commit to them as many others actually do, because he has financial wealth, thanks to his inheritance from his dad? Or did he just not find his true calling until now?
Fleeting Fancy?
Because Trudeau doesn't have to work for money, is the prospect of being Liberal leader and possibly prime minister just another temporary professional diversion like some of his previous pursuits seem to have been? This seems a reasonable question, and his fence-sitting about the Liberal leadership hasn't helped his image in this regard. 

First he said he wasn't ready for the leadership role and had other work to do as an M.P. first. In taking that position he indicated he recognized he doesn't have enough political experience to either try for the Liberal leadership or to be the leader--which was inspiring and showed political and personal maturity and self-awareness. 

But Trudeau soon changed his tune and seemed to be buying into the notion He is The One: the Liberal party's Only Hope for redemption, salvation, and taking back the prime minister's office. He said he was thinking about the Liberal leadership some more and would decide at a later date; even though he previously said he had decided he wasn't ready, personally or politically, for the job. 

Has he really been that undecided, or was he just being coy to see how many people would stroke his ego and encourage him to run for the leadership?

Decision Day?

If Trudeau does announce on Oct. 2, 2012 he will be a candidate for the federal Liberal leadership, does this necessarily mean he's in it for the long haul, win or lose? If he runs and doesn't win, or if he wins the leadership but ultimately is not crowned King of the (Parliament) Hill--prime minister--will he take his toys and go home in a huff? Or will he just find a new playground?

No Tattoos.Ink

I admit I'm not a fan of tattoos. I usually find them unnecessary, grossly oversized, unattractive, pointless, gaudy, and often downright ugly.

And, not surprisingly, perhaps, I confess I don't have any tattoos--unlike so many other people I see every day walking and on city buses; male and female, and mainly seeming to be in their 20s and 30s.

Safety of Tattoos?

Despite the obvious popularity of tattooing these days, in our Western society, is this practice all fun and games? Are there potential long-term dangers of copious amounts of tattooing? 

Can ink seep into the bloodstream and eventually create physical or even psychological problems for the tattooee?

Many physically-colorful adults I see in my daily travels are accompanied by their small children who aren't tattooed—yet. Will these tattooed moms and dads of today influence or convince their kids to get tattoos of their own when they're old enough?

Will today's tattooed parents create tomorrow's generation of colorful body art connoisseurs—who might end up having physical or psychological problems resulting from having 'tats'?

Saw First Tattoo at Home

The first tattoo I ever saw was on my father's left forearm when I was a boy: a simple, unobtrusive, and inoffensive design—by my standards, anyway. If I recall correctly, his tattoo had a small blue wavy ribbon either just on the top of it, or on the top and bottom. In the centre was the word 'Mother.'

Even by that time, when I first noticed that tattoo as a boy, it was faded and obscured somewhat by arm hair, so was not overly-visible even at the best of times. So, I was never bothered or offended by the indelible inkwork on my father's arm, and seldom even paid attention to it.

I recall once, as a small boy, asking my father what his tattoo was for and why he got it. He said he got it when he was in the army, in part, because his military buddies were doing it too; peer pressure was alive and well then; as now.

But he said his tattoo was also his way to honor and remember his mother when he was away from home in the army.

Contrasting Tattoo Styles

Unlike the simplicity of my father's tattoo, I can't help noticing and staring—appalled yet unobtrusively, I hope--at the numbers, sizes, colors, and locations of so many men's and women's tattoos I see in my daily travels.

Most of these inky people seem to have tattoos on every conceivable part of their bodies: on the back of necks, on faces, the tops of feet, on calves and sides of legs, arms, fingers; you name the body part, there's likely a tattoo of some sort there.

Self-Expression, Attention & Forethought

Because some people have so many attention-grabbing tattoos on their body, I wonder: are they covering parts of their bodies with ink just as a way to express themselves and their perceived identities, or to create an identity?
Do they get tattoos because their friends and acquaintances are doing it? Are some succumbing to peer pressure, as my father suggested he did in getting his 'Mother' tattoo when he was in the army? 
Are so many younger people in our Western society getting tattoos because they're desperate for attention at any cost? 

Or is there some other reason so many people, mainly younger, are having their skin dyed with multiple designs and multiple colors?
Have many of them seriously considered how they might feel months or years down the road if and when they become unhappy with themselves and their bodies because of all their tattooing?   

Tattooing Old Art Form

Of course, tattooing, or 'body art,' isn't a new art form; it's been practiced in many parts of the world for thousands of years, for various reasons. And today, too, tattoos are popular in many other places besides Canada.

Tattooed Man in Korean Sauna

When I lived and taught in Korea for three years recently, I regularly went to the saunas--also known as public baths--which can be found in most Korean towns and cities. At one of these saunas I saw one man who was colorfully covered in tattoos, essentially completely, front and back, top to bottom.

For many visitors to Korea, the saunas are a welcome change from repressive sensibilities some might say are generally instilled in many Westerners. 
The public baths respect differences between the sexes, and are segregated by sex; males on one side, females on the other. Both sides of the baths, however, have one thing in common: everyone on each side—small children, teenagers, parents, grandparents, siblings, and friends—is as naked as the day is long.

Completely Covered

And that's how I came to see the completely-tattooed man in the Korean sauna. His entire body, back and front--except for his face, genital area and feet--was covered in tattoos; multi-designed and multi-colored.

I couldn't imagine how or why he found the time to get his body completely covered in ink. I assume he had it done over a period of months or perhaps even years. And I wondered: Why would he do it in the first place?

How Unique is Body Art?

Despite my silent judgements and questions about tattooing--including the Korean man with his all-over body art, and others I see daily—these people seem unembarrassed and unperturbed by their colorful body canvasses; maybe they even feel proud and unique.

But if people with tattoos are seeking uniqueness, how unique can one tattooed person really be when so many others are also having it done to their bodies?

Time to Change My Ways

On reflection, though, perhaps I'm just being a stick-in-the-mud about all of this.

Perhaps I should shake things up a bit, and go and get all inked up, front and back, top to bottom, with snakes, flowers, monsters, and other such designs—big and small, of course, and in all sorts of colors--all over my lily-white self.

Maybe then I'll feel unique, and really get to know how the other side lives.

Suggestions for tattoo designs will be considered.

‘Social Media’ vs ‘Anti-Social' Media?

Are so-called ‘Social Media’ electronic gadgets and websites really social? Or are they actually ‘Anti-Social' Media? 
At first glance, many people seem so caught up in their little electronic ‘social media’ gadgets they appear oblivious to the rest of real life actually going on around them. They seem in a world of their own; obsessed by their electronic devices, often seeming to be preventing others from entering their ‘personal space’ in any way. 
Are these people implicitly or explicitly sending the message to others to leave them alone; so they can continue their unrelenting orgy of e-mailing or text messaging, or listening to music flooding their eardrums through their earphones big and small?

‘Social Media’ or ‘Anti-Social' Media?

It’s been said that people are social animals. But are people who seem consumed by their electronic devices and other ‘social media’ really being social? Or are they essentially keeping others at bay with their latest or favorite hand-held gadget and earphones, or by obsessing over so-called 'social media' websites? 

Do so many of these poor souls succumb to these electronic obsessions because they’re afraid to interact with other humans; perhaps uncomfortable conversing with others? Do these electronic gadgets merely provide an easy and somewhat temporary escape from the routines and drudgeries of daily life? 

Or are those who seem consumed by their ‘social media’ electronic gadgets actually being anti-social—at the expense of interacting with other humans in-person?

Out of Control

Blocking things and people out with earphones is not a new concept, of course. As a boy I had my transistor radio, with earphones, which I took with me while walking. Having my radio helped make my walk a bit more fun and interesting; my own form of ‘social media’ before the term was ever contemplated. My daughter Heather had her disc-man as a teenager, for similar reasons.

But these days, the ubiquitous ‘social media’ seem out of control; or at least some aspects of ‘social media’ could be doing more harm than good—especially when those who seem preoccupied with ‘social media’ appear anti-social in the process; by seeming unwilling to be interrupted for a little ‘social contact’ with another human being.

Observations

From my daily observations of many people, younger and older, walking on sidewalks, riding in buses, driving cars, sitting in coffee shops…many seem immobilized and utterly enamored by their ‘social media’ gadgets; oblivious to anything or anyone else in their vicinity--as they might once have been captivated by an interesting conversation with another human.

But now, those who seem addicted to electronic 'social media' gadgets often seem to be knowingly or unwittingly blocking out anyone who is physically nearby, who might want to speak with them, even briefly. 

By having their electronic devices either plugged into their ears, or staring at the small screen and continually reading or sending seemingly endless text messages, or going on Facebook or the internet at almost any location, these people send the message that they don’t want to be bothered by other humans.

‘Social Media’ Misleading 

In these contexts, then, the term ‘Social Media’ seems a misnomer; wrongly suggesting all ‘social media’ devices and activities are designed to help users have healthy human interactions with others, all the time; to help people enhance their social lives. 

But is this always so? Not according to many of my students in the fall 2012 semester at a Canadian community college; where I taught two sections of a course called WRIT—critical thinking-reading-writing—to first-year students.

Facebook Harmful? 
I had my students first read an article, ‘Facebook is Killing Communication,’ in class about the perceived pros and cons of this online gathering place; and then write a response essay in class, critically analyzing the author’s comments.

The author, Emile Visage, acknowledged Facebook is the premier 'social media' place to go online to make new friends and reconnect with old ones. But he also claimed Facebook is a hazard to users because it "erodes" valuable face-to-face communication skills and leads to "shallow" relationships.
“People treat the number of friends they have on the network as a status symbol—a sign that they are somehow liked and needed...Making friends requires trust, effort, and compassion. Simply accepting a friend to be added to a list is not friendship—it is a game, and a shallow one at that,” said Visage.

Students Agreed Facebook Unhealthy

Interestingly, and to my surprise, many students in both of my classes, who go on Facebook every chance they get, also agreed, in their essays, that many of their Facebook ‘friends’ really aren’t true friends at all.
In these students' essays, some actually noted the real goal in adding ‘friends’ to their own Facebook page is to build their own feelings of self-importance by having large numbers of online followers who ‘like’ them enough to be ‘Facebook friends.’

One student even said anyone on Facebook who has fewer than about 100 ‘friends’ on his or her Facebook page is generally considered a loser. To me, this strongly suggests there is or can be a bullying and humiliation aspect to Facebook, which has been borne out in some real-life news stories; leading Facebook to potentially seem like a horribly oppressive and demeaning online atmosphere.

Yet, no doubt there are many merits to Facebook--and to other ‘social media’ sites and activities, as well, depending on how they are used.

No Facebook

In the interests of so-called ‘full disclosure,’ another of today’s popular terms, it might not be a surprise to learn I am not a Facebook fan. In fact I have been on the site only once; to look at a photo my long-time good friend Mike posted to his own page, of himself with a guitar when he was about 8 years old. He was cute. 

But my main problem with Facebook isn’t its perceived superficiality, which my students duly noted in their critical response essays about the Facebook article they read. I don’t go on Facebook because I’m mainly concerned about its well-known privacy issues—specifically, that Facebook users apparently have little or no control over how Facebook owners can or might use individuals’ personal material they post on their own pages.

Other ‘Social Media’ Behaviors Questionable

As for other so-called ‘social media,’ many people still drive while watching an electronic device instead of the road. They seem so intent on keeping their eyes on the latest e-mail or text message that pedestrians and other living things appear unimportant while they’re behind the wheel of their potential killing machine.

Many who seem obsessed with their electronic gadgets also walk down sidewalks, and across intersections—busy or otherwise--staring at their little devices—instead of heeding other pedestrians they could hit in their electronic stupor; and instead of watching for motor vehicles that could hit them. 

Incredibly, these particular pedestrians seem to blindly and blithely surrender their safety to their electronic gadgets while out for a stroll: they look down at their little device while walking; instead of looking up and watching where they’re going.

‘Anti-Social' Media Seems to Prevail

I see these and other kinds of related scenarios happening every day, outdoors and indoors. The electronic gadget users usually seem so wrapped up in their devices they appear to consciously or unintentionally block other individuals and the rest of the world around them out of their lives in those precious electronic moments. 

Sadly, those electronic moments invariably seem more important to the ‘social media’ gadget user than human interaction with others—including friends or family--who might be nearby, even in the same room; which can lead the electronic ‘social media’ user to actually appear engrossed in ‘anti-social' media.

Bieber, Bethesda & Blackmail

Much has been said lately in some media in London, Ontario about pop music star Justin Bieber’s alleged responsibility to give a large part of his fortune to save the Bethesda Centre--a home for pregnant teenage girls in the city--from closing. The reason? His mother, Pattie Mallette, stayed at the centre when she was 18 and pregnant with him. 
Pressure
The public pressure on Justin to give a large lump sum of his own money for this cause seems enormous sometimes. Many people imply and say, in letters to the editor and newspaper columns, it’s now Justin’s job to repay the Bethesda Centre; that it's his job to show, with his money, how grateful he is for what the centre did for his mother, and by extension, for him, all those years ago. 
But I assume Justin's mother has, at least once, thanked the Bethesda Centre for its help all those years ago. If so, is that not enough? In my view, people are wrong to think Justin should be obligated to give any money at all, just because he's wealthy; and just because his mom stayed at the centre for a time just before he was born.

The Apparent Dilemma

The Bethesda Centre is run by the Salvation Army, which, according to various news reports, said in February 2012 it would need $1.5 million to ensure the centre could stay open for between three to five years; instead of just on a year-to-year basis. 
Various news reports say the Salvation Army claims it can’t keep operating the centre with an annual budget shortfall of $300,000. The Salvation Army reportedly has set a deadline of May 31, 2012 as the date by which all of the $1.5 million must be raised; or the Salvation Army will supposedly make the decision to close the centre; if not right away, then at a specified date in the near future.

A Complicated Situation?

In fairness, I have not read any reports indicating the Salvation Army has ever said publicly it hopes or believes Justin Bieber, or anyone else for that matter, should help rescue the Bethesda Centre financially. 
And no doubt this overall situation could be more-complex than it might seem at first glance. Is the solution really just as simple as some organization or some person--such as Justin Bieber--coming up with enough money to ensure the Bethesda Centre could stay open for a few years; and not just year-to-year?
Questions
In these contexts, I think the following questions are worth considering:
1) Is there more to the story than meets the eye? 
2) Would there really be no more problems regarding the Bethesda Centre if the Salvation Army received $1.5 million by May 31, 2012?
3) Does the Salvation Army even want the Bethesda Centre to stay open? If not, why? 
4) Did the Salvation Army purposely set the required dollar amount needed to keep the centre open so high--at $1.5 million--because it knew raising that much money in such a short period of time would be nearly impossible? 

5) Ultimately, is the Salvation Army actually hoping for a negative outcome, for some reason, so it can justify closing the Bethesda Centre?

Giving In  
By all accounts Bieber has already given in to some of the public pressure for him to rescue or at least help the Bethesda Centre. He apparently has committed part of the proceeds from his latest tune, Turn to You, which he reportedly wrote as a tribute to his mother, to go to the centre. 
On May 15, 2012 one news source reported, “On Saturday (May 12, 2012), the Help Save Bethesda committee announced that Bieber would be donating a portion of the revenues from his single to their campaign” (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/good-news/justin-bieber-mother-day-song-helps-save-ontario-171526758.html).

Apparently, though, the total amount to be donated from the sales of Bieber’s new song won’t be known for some time; likely well after the Salvation Army’s apparently rigid deadline of May 31, 2012. 
Despite Justin’s gesture in this regard, however, it isn’t good enough for many people, who wrongly believe he should do even more.

Justin's Money, Just in Time? 
Shauna Rae, a Saturday columnist with The London Free Press, reminds us of just how much money Bieber actually has, just so everyone knows he’s got more than enough to single-handedly save the Bethesda Centre. She notes he was recently named to Forbes magazine’s “top three most powerful celebrity category—his fame and social media machine racking up 55-million smackeroos” (London Free Press, May 19, 2012).

But Rae contradicts herself: On one hand she implies Bieber is being unfairly pressured to save the Bethesda Centre; on the other hand she says outright he should give the Salvation Army all the money it needs or wants, right now.

No Pressure, but Show us the Money

“Obviously no one should feel pressured to give,” Shauna Rae says (London Free Press, May 19, 2012). Here, she seems generous in her thinking, presumably alluding to unfair expectations many people seem to be putting on Bieber to cough up the cash to save the Bethesda Centre. 
But like many others, Rae also seems to be salivating at the thought of Justin handing over a large part of his fortune and giving it to the Salvation Army/Bethesda Centre: “Why doesn’t the kid just donate the money? Why doesn’t he just write a cheque, instead of making them (Bethesda Centre) wait until the final hour to see if the song he crafted sells enough…to save the day…Just cut them a cheque, Biebs, it’ll make you feel fantastic” (London Free Press, May 19, 2012).

Emotional Blackmail & Guilt

Many private citizens, including Shauna Rae in her newspaper column, shamefully and unfairly use the enormous power of guilt and emotional blackmail to get young Justin to feel responsible for saving the Bethesda Centre from threatened closure. 
Why? Because Justin is famous and wealthy beyond belief for someone his age, 18--the same age his mom was when she stayed at the centre and benefited from its support services while pregnant with him. 
Notably, Rae and others are implicitly trying to get Justin to feel responsible for the lives and futures of untold numbers of pregnant teenage girls he will never know; and for whom he is actually not responsible.  

And Justin's mother, regardless of any sentiment she might feel for the centre because of her own youthful experiences there, should be first in line telling these vultures to back off and leave her son alone.  

Abhorrent Tactics
Those who are trying to get Justin Bieber to save the Bethesda Centre are being unfair, unreasonable, and displaying abhorrent behavior in preying on him just because he is so young and has money; and just because these girls at the Bethesda Centre are--only because of their pregnancies--like his mom when she stayed there for a time while pregnant with him.

This is not Justin Bieber’s Dilemma

Ultimately, can any reasonable person really believe that Justin Bieber--who is only 18 years old, notwithstanding his wealth--is actually morally, financially, and/or emotionally obligated to bail out the Bethesda Centre just because his mom stayed there once while pregnant with him, nearly two decades ago?

If Justin still lived in Stratford, Ontario, where he was raised, and if he was not rich and famous, would anyone expect him to fork over part of his money—maybe from working at an ‘ordinary’ job with ‘ordinary’ wages, to help save the Bethesda Centre, just because the centre helped his mother when she was a girl?  
Because of the public campaign to get as much money as possible from Justin to save the Bethesda Centre, will all sons and daughters of every former teen mother who ever stayed there be on the hook financially, later in their own lives, to rescue the centre whenever it's having money troubles? 
Or will this happen only if the sons and daughters are young, rich and famous and presumed to be easy targets--just like Justin Bieber?

Rafferty #2: The Sentence

Victoria (Tori) Stafford’s family and friends can finally begin to move on with their lives, to some degree, after today’s sentencing of Michael Rafferty, 31. Late last week he was convicted by a jury of kidnapping, first-degree murder, and sexual assault causing bodily harm in the 8-year-old girl’s death on April 8, 2009. Rafferty chose to not testify at his trial. His partner in crime, Terri-Lynne McClintic, 21, previously pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and is already serving a life term with no chance of parole for 25 years. Today was Rafferty’s turn.

The Sentence

Rafferty was sentenced to life in prison for first-degree murder, with little or no chance of parole “until at least 25 years have elapsed since his arrest" (Globe and Mail, May 15, 2012). He was also sentenced to two 10-year terms, agreed to by the Crown and Defence, for the sexual assault and the abduction, to run concurrently with the life term--meaning those 10-year terms are rolled into the 25 year term, not in addition to it. 
In addition, Rafferty is also banned for life from having firearms, was placed on the sex-offender registry, and must provide DNA samples. He will be able to apply for parole after serving 15 years, under the so-called “faint hope” clause of the Criminal Code. The federal government actually killed that clause last year, "but because Tori’s murder predated the change, the old rules apply. Few such applications succeed, however, and in this instance the chances of Mr. Rafferty walking the street then – if ever – appear remote” (Globe and Mail, May 15, 2012).

Powerful Victim Impact Statements

Before Rafferty was sentenced, several of Victoria's survivors--her parents, grandparents, Grade 3 teacher and others--read their predictably poignant victim impact statements in court; detailing their ongoing heartbreak and loss. The statement from Tori’s older brother Daryn, now 14, was read to the court on his behalf by a Crown Prosecutor.

Daryn spoke of his closeness and love for his little sister--his best friend; and his guilt for not being with her and protecting her when she was kidnapped in broad daylight outside her school by McClintic. Daryn said he said he and Tori had a typical brother-sister argument just minutes before she was abducted; he didn't know he would never see her again.

Rafferty Apologized but Denied Guilt 

At sentencing, paradoxically, Rafferty apologized to Victoria's family but maintained he is not guilty. “I am a very definite part of why Victoria is not here today.” Apparently he did not appreciate how this latter statement contradicts his claim that he is not guilty. 
Rafferty proclaimed at sentencing that while “I am guilty of many things, and for that I am ashamed,” he stands behind his not-guilty plea. He also said he would like to speak to Tori’s mother, Tara McDonald “privately” to tell her something she does not know (Globe and Mail, May 15, 2012). 
McDonald, though, reportedly has said she has no interest in speaking privately with Rafferty.
“I still disagree with the conviction on these three charges...” said Rafferty. “I am truly sorry to all the family...not that has any bearing coming from my mouth.” In addressing Tara McDonald, he said, “Nobody has all the pieces of the puzzle and I am willing to give them” (Toronto Star, May 15, 2012). Interestingly, Rafferty again seemed to not realize that his apology, above, appears to negate his claim that he is not guilty of the crimes against Victoria Stafford. 
Why Just Victoria's Mother?

If Rafferty really wanted to do an iota of good before starting his life term, why did he offer to give the so-called missing pieces of the puzzle only to Victoria Stafford's mother, Tara McDonald? Why did he want to speak privately only with her, and not with Victoria's mother and father together; or even with Tori's entire family? The answer to these two questions might be in the trial evidence about Rafferty's attraction to certain kinds of women. 

Broken Women
Rafferty's history with women, on display during his trial, indicates his attraction to 'broken women,' and his apparent need to control and dominate females he perceived as emotionally and intellectually weaker, and less-capable than he is; or was. This suggests cowardice, and a fear of being with women who were smarter, emotionally stronger, and more-confident and more-accomplished than he was. He must have known he'd be less-able to con and control women with those positive characteristics. So he avoided them.

Rafferty seemed to have a need for women he perceived as having personal problems, such as loneliness, low self-esteem and drug use; like himself. Some testimony during his trial indicated he often seemed alone and desperate to have the women he contacted online reply to his initial contact with him. When the women responded favorably, Rafferty would make his move. He seemed to perceive himself as their savior; believing and convincing them he was the one who could brighten up their lonely lives. 

Narcissism? Need for Control?

Was Rafferty demonstrating his own low self-esteem by trying to build those women up to make himself feel worthwhile and important? Was he demonstrating his narcissism and need to control others? Regardless, he rightly believed many of those women would fall for his flattery and shy little boy routine. Instinctively, Rafferty must have sensed they would believe he had done something wonderful for them--even he had just paid attention to them. 
Then the women would be indebted to Rafferty, and probably do anything he asked; hence, he was in control. Such was the case with one young woman Rafferty first met online and who eventually agreed with his suggestion that she should become an 'escort' and give all of her earnings to him; in other words, she agreed to be his hooker and to let him be her pimp. Ultimately she gave him about $16,000 over several months, which he apparently used, in part, to spend on other women while the 'escort' was convinced she and Rafferty were in an 'exclusive' relationship; that she was his only girlfriend.

A Perfect Storm

But nobody seemed to exemplify this kind of desperation for attention as much as Terri-Lynne McClintic, Rafferty's co-convicted killer. His need for control and power, and her need or desperation for attention and love came together at the right time for both; but, sadly, with tragic consequences for little Victoria Stafford and her family. 
McClintic's own personal history is wretched by any standards: childhood drug use alone and with her mother, violence, little formal education, and jail; culminating in abducting a little girl, who happened to be Victoria, at Rafferty's suggestion, she claimed; and either killing or helping to kill Victoria. As McClintic said after Victoria's murder, Rafferty once told her, mockingly she thought, 'You'll do anything for a little bit of love, won't you?'

McDonald the Final Victim?
Considering the kind of women to whom Rafferty generally was attracted, when he offered at sentencing to meet privately with Tara McDonald and give her 'all the answers,' he might have perceived her as his final victim; another 'broken woman' because of the trauma he inflicted on her by raping and killing her little girl; and because she had some well-known personal issues, such as her drug addiction--which had been public knowledge since the search for her daughter began. 
McDonald had even bought drugs from Terri-Lynne McClintic's mother on at least one occasion before McClintic abducted Victoria on April 8, 2009. Rafferty would have known of all of this; either because McClintic told him, or because he apparently followed news coverage of Victoria's disappearance, which initially included speculation about McDonald's character as a drug addict, before he and McClintic were arrested. 
One Last Con? 
So, in offering to meet with McDonald privately, with none of her strong support system present, perhaps Rafferty perceived her as one last easy mark he could charm and manipulate, because of her perceived vulnerability and weakness. Maybe he hoped he could score one last con before heading off to prison; maybe to garner her support or affection or sympathy, or understanding, in one way or another; as sick as that seems, considering he kidnapped, raped, and killed her 8-year-old daughter.  
Stranger things have happened. Perhaps Rafferty would have used the private meeting to mock McDonald, as McClintic felt he mocked her after she kidnapped a small girl who turned out to be Victoria Stafford, supposedly at his urging. Any of these potential scenarios seems possible. Rafferty has amply demonstrated he will do anything to satisfy his own needs. And if he did think he could trick Tara McDonald into something, or elicit her sympathy by meeting with her privately, this would seem in line with his character where women are concerned, as his trial showed only too well.  

Judge Not Swayed by Rafferty's Denial 

The trial judge, Mr. Justice Thomas Heeney, who has been widely-praised for doing everything possible to ensure Rafferty got a fair trial, didn’t buy his denial of guilt in the little girl’s kidnapping, rape, and murder.

“You sir are a monster,” he told the sniffling 31-year-old killer. "You have snuffed out the life of a beautiful, talented, vivacious little girl. a ‘tomboy diva’ in the trustful innocence of childhood. And for what? So that you could gratify your twisted and deviant desire to have sex with a child. Only a monster could commit such an act of pure evil (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/you-sir-are-a-monster-judge-tells-rafferty-at-sentencing/article2433161/).

If Rafferty lives out his full sentence, if he doesn't die by his own hand or someone else's first, he will be nearly 60 years old when he has even a faint chance of being released.

 

Rafferty Verdict Fair

By now, most people who even remotely follow Canadian news know that 31-year-old Michael Rafferty has been found guilty of kidnapping, first-degree murder, and sexual assault causing bodily harm in the death three years ago of 8-year old Victoria (Tori) Stafford of Woodstock, Ontario. His accomplice and partner in depravity, Terri-Lynne McClintic, pleaded guilty two years ago to first-degree murder. Rafferty is to be sentenced for his crimes on Tuesday, May 15, 2012. The heinous and unspeakably cruel details of their actions have been well-documented in the media and do not have to be repeated here.

Judge Disallowed Police Search of Electronics

There has been some criticism in the media, though, about the judge’s decision to not allow into evidence what police found on Rafferty’s computer and other electronic devices located in his home and car. Police had search warrants for his home and car, but not specifically for the electronic equipment. Police said they assumed they could search and seize anything, including the electronic gear, found in Rafferty’s car and home; apparently believing the search warrants were all-encompassing. 

The judge, Mr. Justice Thomas Heeney of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice disagreed. He said police should have had a separate search warrant to search Rafferty’s electronic equipment and because they didn’t, evidence found on Rafferty’s computer and other electronic gear would not be admitted as evidence. 

Honest Mistake by Police

Heeney acknowledged the police acted in good faith during the illegal searches of Rafferty's electronics, and said police believed they knew the law in these regards. But he said at the very least the police were “careless” in not finding out, with certainty, whether they needed a separate search warrant for the electronics.  
So far, there has been no public suggestion that police conducted the illegal or unconstitutional search of Rafferty’s electronic equipment out of malice. Presumably it was an honest mistake or ineptitude that nevertheless could have had dire consequences for the Crown and children in our society at large. 
What if Rafferty had been acquitted if the Crown's remaining evidence against him, without the electronics evidence, wasn't strong enough? 
What if evidence from Rafferty's electronics, which would have been admitted if police had used the proper search warrant, would have convicted him? 
What if Rafferty then went on to rape and kill other children as a result of the police's 'honest mistake?' 
As it is, however, the Crown's case stood up without the electronics evidence.
Internet Searches Predicted Crimes?

The incriminating evidence found by police on Rafferty’s electronic devices showed his predilection for child rape and murder, which Heeney forbade the jury to hear; this evidence was released to the media and public once the jury began deliberating on Rafferty’s future, such as it is, on Friday, May 11, 2012. 

The relevance of Rafferty’s particular internet searches to his and McClintic’s crimes against Victoria Stafford cannot be ignored. Police found evidence that in the weeks before kidnapping, raping, and killing little Tori, Rafferty had searched the internet for information about child rape, nude pre-teen children, and had watched movies about kidnapping and murdering small girls. 
Did Rafferty's internet searching actually predict and set in motion the chain of events that resulted in Tori's horrible last day of her life?

In McClintic’s testimony against Rafferty—if she was truthful--she testified Rafferty initially complained that Tori, at just 8 years of age, was too old and he wanted someone even younger. McClintic also testified Rafferty said, as they drove away from Tori’s school, with the girl hidden in the back seat, ‘You know I’m going to ______ her, right?’
While a pathologist testified decomposition of Victoria's body made it impossible to determine if she was sexually assaulted, the implicit evidence spoke volumes: her poor battered body was naked from the waist down, when her remains were finally found. Why? There seemed only one logical conclusion, which the jury also determined. 

Realistically, this helpless 8-year-old child would not have willingly taken off most of her clothes in front of two adult strangers. Someone did it for, or to, her.

Judge was Right

I believe the judge was right to not allow the illegally-obtained evidence from Rafferty’s computer and other electronic devices into trial. Imagine the outrage from the public and media if he had not been cautious and allowed the illegal evidence to be admitted--and if Rafferty successfully appealed his convictions, or got off altogether, on grounds that his electronic gear was searched illegally. 

Better Cautious than Reckless
So, Heeney had at least two choices: be cautious or reckless. By being cautious, he seemed to do all he could to ensure Rafferty got a fair trial. The judge did not give the jury the chance to find Rafferty guilty with evidence that was wrongly obtained, especially since that particular evidence could bias the jury against Rafferty for his perceived character alone—regardless of whether he actually committed the crimes.

If Heeney had been reckless, he would have ignored his concern that police inadvertently botched their searches of Rafferty’s electronic equipment; and he could have hoped the jury would try to be fair with the illegally-obtained evidence. Clearly, the judge didn’t think this option was good enough, and I agree.

If Heeney had been reckless and allowed the evidence from Rafferty’s electronic equipment into trial, the judge also could have been perceived as condoning the illegal police search; and colluding with police to sabotage Rafferty’s rights—all of which would have done a huge disservice to the justice system overall.

Potential Damage to Defence

The evidence from the wrongful search of Rafferty's electronic gear potentially could have destroyed the defence’s unproven theory that Rafferty had no interest in sex with children or murder. But his lead attorney, a good legal aid lawyer, Dirk Derstine, might have had a good case for either a mistrial, or at least demanding the jury not be allowed to consider that particular evidence.
Defence Disavowed Rafferty’s Violence

During Rafferty’s trial, Derstine implied his client was just a hapless dope and dupe who drove the car and helped McClintic clean up after she savagely killed little Victoria Stafford; and he implied his client wasn’t interested in sex with children or murder.
Derstine theorized--but didn’t prove—that McClintic engineered the plan from start to finish: she kidnapped Tori on her own without being asked or told to do so by Rafferty; she offered the little girl to Rafferty as a ‘sexual gift’ which Rafferty declined; and she killed the child in the car when Rafferty went for a walk on McClintic’s instructions. 

After Rafferty’s guilty verdict, Derstine was asked by the media how it felt, or what it was like defending Rafferty. His answer was evasive, saying every person “in our system” deserves a strong and effective defence in a court of law; adding that just as Victoria Stafford was somebody’s child, so is Michael Rafferty.

The difference, however, is that Victoria Stafford’s life as somebody’s child, with all its potential hope, accomplishments, loves, and happiness with her family and friends, was snuffed out with unimaginable brutality and cruelty by Rafferty and McClintic before it really began.

And Rafferty? He gets to live out the rest of his wretched life, albeit in a little cubicle among the worst offenders imaginable, unless he commits suicide or is killed first.

Oda’s Spending Behavior Odious

Canada’s International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda seems destined to go down in Canadian political history as the self-appointed Queen of Spending from the Public Trough for her apparent extravagant financial habits at the public’s expense. She has been caught on at least two separate occasions in the past six years, racking up expenditures that apparently were more a result of her high opinion of herself, rather than necessity. Oda apologized this week for her latest publicized overspending, in London, England last June. But the situation still reeks of her apparent cavalier approach to spending money that isn't hers.

In the first publicized instance of Oda's perceived reckless spending of taxpayers' money, in 2006, she was called on the carpet for paying to use limousines at Canada's biggest music show, the Juno Awards, in Halifax. At that time, according to The Huffington Post, "Oda told the Commons she had partially repaid the government for her use of limousines. In 2006, she had spent $5,476 for the limos during the Juno awards in Halifax. She later reimbursed the government for $2,226 of the bill."
Now, this week Oda apologized in the House of Commons, this time for her latest big-spending extravaganza last June--or at least the latest one that has been made public. But saying 'I'm sorry' only when questioned about her extravagances, a year after the fact, leads her so-called apology to seem questionable at best. 
Childish or Piggish?

In the latest instance of Oda's wild overspending of taxpayers' money, in June 2011 while attending a conference in London, England, she seemed to behave like a kid locked in a candy store--determined to take all she could while the going was good; or like a hog at meal time--determined to slurp up as much slop as she could at the public trough before the farmer saw what she was doing and made her stop.

Oda apparently thought staying at London's swanky Grange St. Paul’s Hotel—where the conference was being held--wasn’t good enough for her. So she upgraded herself to the five-star Savoy Hotel. According to The Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/04/24/bev-oda-sorry-apology-hotel-expenses_n_1449784.html), the London Evening Standard newspaper claims the Savoy “has been a favoured destination of royalty — the real kind, as well as the Hollywood and rock-music variety.”

Just a Politician, Not a Princess

Unfortunately, Oda doesn’t seem to realize she is really just a well-paid public servant and not an actual princess or other royalty—notwithstanding her apparent self-perception. Perhaps she thought the accommodations at the Grange St. Paul’s Hotel were inferior for someone of her perceived stature; and that being booked into that hotel reflected badly on her, compared to accommodations she believes she deserves. 
So Oda did what seems to come so naturally to her: using taxpayers' money, she blithely upsized her London living quarters to the Savoy. To those who haven’t been to merry old England, the Savoy Hotel reportedly is just a 25-minute walk from Oda’s conference at the Grange St. Paul’s Hotel; also the site of her original accommodations. 
Then, despite the short distance from Oda's new accommodations at the Savoy Hotel to the conference site at the Grange St. Paul's Hotel, The Huffington Post says today Oda charged $2,850 for three days of a luxury car service, "including 15 hours on June 13, 2011. Oda’s itinerary shows she was supposed to be at the conference site — the Grange St. Paul’s Hotel — from 8 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. that day, after which she had private time.”

Access to Information

Oda apparently felt no shame or guilt or otherwise had no qualms about her spending in London until earlier this week when the media got wind of her actions. The Huffington Post says The Canadian Press obtained documents under the Access to Information Act, showing “Oda refused to stay at the first location, and was booked into the Savoy hotel two kilometres away for $665 a night. The government was billed a cancellation fee for the Grange hotel of $287. Oda repaid $1,353.81 to cover the difference between the two hotels, the cancellation fee, plus a $16 orange juice she had charged to her room.”

An Apology of Convenience?

Earlier this week, Oda apologized in the House of Commons for her extravagance last June in London: "Mr. Speaker, the expenses are unacceptable, should never have been charged to taxpayers, I have repaid the costs associated with the changing of hotels and I unreservedly apologize," Oda told the House of Commons (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/04/24/bev-oda-sorry-apology-hotel-expenses_n_1449784.html).

Despite Oda’s apology, many of her spending critics, including me, think she apologized because she got caught and felt forced to apologize, not because she really believed she did anything wrong. Otherwise, why didn’t she come clean and repay the money long before now? Why did she apologize and say her spending was out of line only when questioned about it and when she knew the jig was up?

Earlier this week NDP MP Charlie Angus (Timmins-James Bay) took Oda to task in the House of Commons. He said he even called the Grange St. Paul’s Hotel and was told the hotel had free limo service Oda could have used if she felt compelled to have that kind of transportation. Even so, in Oda’s apology this week she didn’t explain why she changed hotels, or why, at the time of her apology, she was not reimbursing taxpayers for a luxury car and driver that spirited her around London at nearly $1,000 a day.

Repaid Expenses

Today, though, the Halifax Chronicle Herald (http://thechronicleherald.ca/canada/90511-oda-has-repaid-limo-bill-her-office-says) reports that a brief message from Oda’s office said all incremental costs "that should not have been expensed" — including the car service — have been repaid.

“The repayment covered the costs associated with changing hotels: the difference in cost between the two hotels, the cancellation fee, the car service in London, and all incremental costs that should not have been charged to taxpayers,” spokesman Justin Broekema is quoted as saying, but apparently without providing a dollar figure.

Appearance of Wrongdoing Important

Ultimately, Oda doesn’t seem to realize or care that the appearance of wrongdoing is just as important as actual wrongdoing itself. When she was elected by her constituents she was effectively hired by them as a Member of Parliament. Thus, she works for her constituents and all other Canadians. She is not self-employed as she seems to think she is; she cannot do whatever she wants, whenever she wants, with public money.
Oda Owes Better Behavior
Finally, by any reasonable standards, Oda is obligated, as a minister of the Crown, to behave responsibly in every way when representing her constituents and the country at home and abroad. She cannot be allowed to rip off taxpayers, and squander money from the public purse out of an apparent need to feed her ego; whenever she feels like it, or whenever she thinks she can get away with it.

As an employee of the taxpayers of Canada, Bev Oda was hired, in part, with the implicit understanding she would spend taxpayers’ money wisely and carefully. Clearly, however, she, and those who allow her to thumb her nose at honest Canadians have a lot to learn about maturity and behaving responsibly.