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.

 

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?