Going to Pot in Canada

So, a young Toronto man, Malik Scott, is worried that being found guilty of possession of recreational marijuana will be “horrible” for his future and prevent him from getting the kind of job he wants. CBC News reports he was charged with possession after police found a small amount of pot in his jacket pocket.

Scott was at a so-called town hall meeting this week attended by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Options Available

Here’s an idea that might seem unique to Scott and others: don’t break the law in the first place and put yourself in the position of possibly being charged, especially since possession of marijuana is currently against the law.

Not breaking the law is easy to understand, especially if you’re concerned that a criminal record for breaking the law could hamper your employment chances.  
Town Hall Q & A
Trudeau took questions from the audience and explained the federal government’s reasons for intending to legalize possession of recreational marijuana. The current law criminalizing possession should be changed, he said, because it does not treat all Canadians fairly or equally:

"…there's a lot of unfairness to Canadians in the current approach," Trudeau said.

Money & Connections Save Reputations

To show how everyone charged with pot possession isn't treated equally, Trudeau shared the little-known example of the privileged treatment his late younger brother Michel got after being charged with possession of marijuana about 20 years ago.

Trudeau said his father, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, used his money and influence to make Michel’s charge of possession disappear.

"My dad…reached out to his friends in the legal community, got the best possible lawyer and was going to...make those charges go away.

"We were able to do that because we had resources…connections, and...were confident...my...little brother wasn’t going to be saddled with a criminal record for life" (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/programs/metromorning/prime-minister-trudeau-marijuana-possession-1.4086900).  

All Things Not Equal

“...People from minority communities...without economic resources are not going to have that option…” Trudeau said.

“...One of the fundamental unfairnesses of this current system, is it affects different people differently…

"Canada’s supposed to be fair to everyone, and that’s one of the reasons we are going to be changing the laws…but...until we...change the law, we can’t take steps...retroactively" (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/programs/metromorning/prime-minister-trudeau-marijuana-possession-1.4086900).
Thus far, Trudeau has said little publicly about another of the government's likely reasons for legalizing pot possession--the money the government will collect in taxes when pot is presumably able to be sold in stores with other 'reputable' products.
Retroactive Erasure of Charges

At the 'town hall' meeting attended by Trudeau, Malik Scott asked what happens to people like him who currently face criminal charges for possession, after possession of recreational marijuana becomes legal.

Trudeau implied the current law for possession is clear, and said the law has to be changed first before anything else, such as retroactive elimination of current possession charges, is considered.

In effect, Trudeau could be suggesting people consider the old adage, ‘if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.’

In other words, possession of marijuana is still a criminal offence in Canada, until the laws are changed.

 

 

Who Knew—Except Donald Trump?

And so it came to pass: a wealthy suburban snake-oil salesman, living a life of luxury, conned millions of American voters in the 2016 presidential election into thinking he’s just like them.
In hindsight, which often teems with insight, President-Elect Donald Trump seems to have duped far too many people into believing he is just an ordinary guy. But is it possible he really identifies with average Americans more than his detractors want to admit?

Empathy Sells

Paradoxically, Trump, a wealthy real-estate developer and late-blooming T.V. star, seems the antithesis of all those average Americans with whom he supposedly identifies.
How could this high-living, self-proclaimed billionaire possibly identify with average Americans? How could he possibly know how it feels to be worried about paying the bills, or what it means to be concerned about job stability?
In fact, though, Trump doesn’t have to be disenfranchised to empathize with those who are. Whether Trump’s empathy for the disgruntled public was contrived or not, he still convinced enough of them to believe he understood why they were dissatisfied with the status quo.
A Good Example
Ironically, Trump seems to have taken his cue for empathizing from former President Bill Clinton, the husband of Trump’s election foe. In 1992 Bill Clinton famously made headlines for his apparent profound empathy when he told an AIDS activist, “I feel your pain,” when the man urged Clinton to take a stand about the AIDS epidemic.
Did Bill Clinton have to have AIDS to understand why the man was discouraged? Did Trump have to live paycheque to paycheque to understand why many Americans are upset with their federal government and the state of their own lives?
Offensive Language
After the release of the disgusting audio from a now-infamous video, Trump even tried to explain away his crass taped words about women as just ‘guy talk;’ the way he suggested all males talk in locker rooms. Most people already know about Trump’s vulgar language on that tape, so his words don’t bear repeating here.
Trump’s incendiary language during the election campaign was often shocking and inflammatory, partly for what he said directly, and also for what he sometimes seemed to suggest.
Yet, as repulsive as a lot of Trump’s language was during the election campaign, including his disparaging comments about immigrants, women, and others, he still has the right of free speech—perhaps unless he uses words publicly to intentionally incite others to violence.
Inflammation Overload: Gunning for Votes
At least once, Trump seemed to purposely incite gun owners to violence against his opponent, Hillary Clinton. He opposed her goal to have stricter gun laws in the U.S.
Presumably vying for gun owners’ votes, Trump implied the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, dealing with the right to bear arms, would allow gun-owners to deal with Clinton, in their own way.
Many pundits believed Trump was encouraging gun-owners to assassinate Clinton, which he denied by explaining he meant only that gun owners could vote against her in the election. Was Trump really advocating violence against Clinton? Or was he just using language cleverly to make a point?
Powerful Language
Trump’s oratory during the campaign was often xenophobic in nature and powerful for his ability to tap into many Americans’ fear of foreigners, for his rich bluntness, and for his bluster about those he deemed unfit and ineligible to be in the country--such as unlawful immigrants and terrorists he claimed are currently allowed to be in the United States. Trump’s skillful-yet-often offensive use of language resonated with many average Americans who might fear their own jobs will be given to lower-paid unlawful immigrants or others, or who worry that potential or actual terrorists are now in the U. S. waiting for a chance to wreak havoc on the country.
No Shortage of Opinions
Trump always had an opinion or explanation about everything during the election campaign; however dubious, distasteful, fabricated or outright false his comments were. But he also seemed to consistently connect with profound voter unrest that Clinton and her Democratic party didn’t seem to recognize or acknowledge.
A Winning Combination
No doubt many factors contributed to Trump’s election victory, all of which ultimately seemed perfectly aligned when he finally grabbed the brass ring, including: general dissatisfaction with the status quo including ‘typical’ politicians like Clinton and others; the impact of his own loud, brazen rhetoric—regardless of how divisive and hateful it was or seemed; his keen instincts and intuition for ‘reading the public;’ his obvious showmanship, insatiable need for attention, and love of the limelight; and his impeccable and fortuitous timing in being a candidate in this particular election.

 

Actions Trump Empty Words

         Many of us like looking down on others, especially those in powerful positions who get themselves in trouble through their own stupidity, foolishness, arrogance and/or perceived importance.
          In this regard, Donald Trump, the Republican nominee in the U.S. presidential election next month, has turned himself into a pariah in many circles--within and outside of his party--thanks to his just-revealed-and-reviled sexist and misogynistic comments about women in general, and a female soap opera actress in particular, from a 2005 video.
         Yet, three high-profile male Republicans--Sens. Paul Ryan and Ted Cruz, and Vice-Presidential candidate Gov. Mike Pence--who presumably can influence many male and female voters by their own actions, seem like hypocritical political cowards: talking big by publicly condemning Trump's sexist comments, but still supporting him for President of the United States.
        Thus, despite their moralizing against Trump's taped remarks objectifying women, Ryan, Cruz, and Pence seem motivated mainly by their own self-interests, not by their alleged morals. In this context, are they really any better than Trump? 
         In the audio from the video, released on Oct. 7, 2016 by The Washington Post and NBC News, Trump, who was married to his current, third wife at the time, is heard describing efforts to have sex with a married woman, and bragging about women letting him kiss them and grab their genitals because he is famous. 
        "When you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything," Trump says in the video. Seconds later: "Grab them by the p----. You can do anything." Of his impulse to kiss beautiful women: "You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait (http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/trump-vows-to-press-on-despite-mounting-calls-from-gop-for-him-to-quit-1.3107441).         
        While watching the rich and powerful with egg on their faces can be among many people’s favorite pastimes, there can’t be much joy now even among Trump’s many dissenters--including many who previously expressed their formal support for him.
        Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz), who had formally supported Trump’s presidential bid, now says enough is enough: "…Donald Trump’s behavior this week, concluding with the disclosure of his demeaning comments about women and his boasts about sexual assaults, make it impossible to continue to offer even conditional support for his candidacy…”
         But McCain, who is up for re-election, appears to be doing some hypocritical moralizing of his own and seems to be trying to save his own political skin by disavowing Trump--saying Trump "alone bears the burden of his conduct and alone should suffer the consequences"  (http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/10/08/mccain-withdraws-support-trump/91797024/).
            Meanwhile, two of Trump’s current high-profile supporters, Sens. Paul Ryan and Ted Cruz, both publicly decried Trump’s audio comments from the video released this week, but their words seem like empty platitudes since they are still formally supporting his presidential bid.

"I am sickened…Women are to be championed and revered, not objectified. I hope Mr. Trump…works to demonstrate…that he has greater respect for women than this clip suggests…"--House Speaker Paul Ryan (http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/republican-reaction-ryan-sickened-cruz-disturbed-by-trump-s-comments-1.3107258). “These comments are disturbing and inappropriate, there is…no excuse for them."-- Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who only recently endorsed Trump (http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/republican-reaction-ryan-sickened-cruz-disturbed-by-trump-s-comments-1.3107258).

Continuing to publicly endorse Trump despite denouncing his taped comments negates Ryan’s and Cruz’s criticism of his remarks. These two senators now seem like shallow opportunists--likely hoping their continued public support will get them named to Trump’s cabinet if he wins November’s election.

Even Trump's vice-presidential pick, Gov. Mike Pence, despite publicly proclaiming he can't support Trump's comments about women, is still on the ticket, implicitly endorsing Trump. "As a husband and father, I was offended by the words and actions described by Donald Trump in the eleven-year-old video released yesterday," he said. "I do not condone his remarks and cannot defend them."
           By stressing Trump's video comments are 11 years old, perhaps Pence is trying to ameliorate them and suggest that was the 'old' Trump. And continuing to run with Trump, despite disavowing his sexist comments, implies Pence could have self-serving motives of his own: hoping Trump will quit at the last minute; leaving Pence the Republican presidential nominee by default, if that is possible.

On Oct. 7, 2016 Trump said in a statement he was wrong and apologized for his video comments. But true to form, he implicitly minimized the significance of his remarks on the video by using part of his so-called apology to castigate Bill and Hillary Clinton; and didn't focus just on the apology or demonstrate any discernible insight into his own behavior. Trump also told supporters he won't quit the presidential race because he “will never, ever let you down.” Yet, he doesn’t seem to realize or want to admit that his offensive video comments are just another crude example of why many people think he has already let them down time and time again.

 

 

 

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

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

Jian Ghomeshi: The Psychology of Hiring a Lawyer

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

Is Being a Good Lawyer Enough?

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

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

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

Perception Important

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

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

Psychologically Intriguing

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

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

Enter Marie Henein.

Hope and Perception

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

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

 

              

Donald Trump: An Exercise in Exaggeration?

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

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

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

All the Campaign’s a Stage

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

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

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

Exaggeration for Attention?

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

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

Possible Insecurity

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

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

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

No Shrinking Violet

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

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

Intentional Exaggeration?

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

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

 

The Senator Speaks: Mike Duffy Had an Option

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

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

Duffy Could Have Said ‘No’

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

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

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

High Ambitions

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

To Be (A Senator) or Not to Be

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

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

Choices

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

You Had an Option, Sir

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

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

  

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May's Vulgarity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alberta’s Opie Takes Toys and Goes Home

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Defeated by Arrogance?

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

Bad Loser

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

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

Does Over Mean Over?

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

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

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

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