Why Shouldn’t British Royals Smile?

           The headline in a recent online news story screamed, breathlessly: ‘Meghan Markle and Kate Middleton are all Smiles with Prince Harry and William During Balcony Appearance’ (http://www.cbs8.com/story/38610355/meghan-markle-and-kate-middleton-are-all-smiles-with-prince-harry-and-william-during-balcony-appearance).
           As if they had many reasons to not smile.
           We learned “the Duchess of Sussex donned a black A-Line long-sleeve dress with a spiral-shaped fascinator (hat; explanation and parenthesis added here). Her new sister-in-law, the Duchess of Cambridge, wore an ice-blue fitted dress and matching fascinator” (http://www.cbs8.com/story/38610355/meghan-markle-and-kate-middleton-are-all-smiles-with-prince-harry-and-william-during-balcony-appearance).
          How utterly fascinating. 
          And why shouldn’t the younger British Royals smile? 
          After all, none of them has to work at an actual job—a real job, to help pay the rent or mortgage, and put food on the table, and keep the kiddies in decent clothing---a day in their lives.           
          None of the British Royals, including Harry and William, ever has to be concerned, the rest of their lives, about money; or about the lack of money and not having any of it--as most mere mortals must worry about these things, at least sometimes.

          None of them ever has to worry about being laid off or, worse, being fired or otherwise displaced, from their so-called jobs—and none of them ever has to be concerned about not being able to find a decent and decent-paying job.

          Their boss-employer-grandmother-grandmother-by-marriage, the Queen, would never do that to them.

           One online source (http://www.businessinsider.com/how-prince-harry-actually-earns-his-princely-fortune-2018-4) states the following points, mainly about Harry:

         • “Prince William and Prince Harry both have an estimated net worth of approximately $39 million;”
         • “Prince Harry, who was born Henry Charles Albert David on September 15, 1984, is formally known as Prince Henry of Wales. He's currently 33 years old;”
        • “When the royal (Harry) turned 30 in 2014, he inherited a trust of around $14 million from his late mother, Diana, Princess of Wales;”
       • While serving as an officer in the Army Air Corps, he (Harry) was reportedly granted a salary of around $45,251 per year;
      • Prince Harry received between $50,278 and $53,286 while working as a helicopter pilot for the Army Air Corps (http://www.businessinsider.com/how-prince-harry-actually-earns-his-princely-fortune-2018-4).

          Another site (www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/politician/royal/prince-william-net-worth/) states, mainly about William, “...William Arthur Philip Louis…Prince William and his younger brother Prince Harry inherited £13m in trust and after tax from their late mother, Diana, Princess of Wales. Since the age of 25, Prince William has enjoyed a lavish income from the £6.5m capital left to him by his mother, plus money from the estate of his great-grandmother the Queen's mother who died in 2002” (www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/politician/royal/prince-william-net-worth/).

         This website also notes William earned a “decent salary” of £37,170 yearly as a flight lieutenant in the Royal Air Force (RAF), and is given an allowance from his father and from his own income from the Duchy of Cornwall estate. And “should his father pre-decease,” his (William’s) “income will go stratospheric when the whole of that income is transferred to him. Investment income and inheritance make his net worth at $40 million according to WealthX” (https://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/politician/royal/prince-william-net-worth/).
        Pity poor William and Harry, along with their poor wives, Kate and Meghan, having to scrimp and get by with these mere pittances. 
       Maybe things will improve for them, financially, and they will really have something to smile about, on and off royal balconies, waving at 'the little people.' 

Intangible Merits of College Strike

     The Ontario colleges’ faculty strike—including professors, counsellors, and librarians--now, unbelievably, nearing the end of its fifth week, continues to be an experience in perseverance, humility and gratitude. Notwithstanding possible practical benefits of this strike regarding income, job security and related matters, there are also some notable intangible rewards to these long weeks of picketing. 

New Friends/Acquaintances

     Regardless of the eventual outcome of the strike--in terms of work-and-pay equity and other related matters—a big benefit for me has been meeting college colleagues on the picket line I didn't know beforehand.         
     Making new acquaintances-friends during this strike will let some of us acknowledge some striking colleagues by name or face-recognition if we see them inside when the strike is over; which can help the college be an even-more-hospitable place to work.         
     While picketing we don't have time or opportunities to get to know each other well or to speak to every striker. But the colleagues I have met on our daily strike shift, 3-7 p.m., are kind, thoughtful, good-natured professionals--which perhaps isn’t surprising since those kinds of people might be drawn to our line of work.

Nosebleed Section of Picket Line    
     Notably, I first experienced the inherent kindness and thoughtfulness of my striking colleagues in our first week of picketing. One day I had a sudden, unexpected nosebleed, for no apparent reason, which persisted for about an hour; and which had never happened before.
     The next day a doctor said my nosebleed likely occurred because I had nasal congestion, and being out in the cold for an extended time likely caused a membrane to burst unexpectedly; hence my nosebleed. It left me feeling embarrassed and self-conscious. 

     But the concern many male and female picketing colleagues expressed to me was touching—especially since most of them had never met me before.
Sharing Stories    
     Perhaps more than I realize, some of us on our picket line have shared diverse personal and professional stories with each other; all the while implicitly helping ourselves and our colleagues make it through another strike shift, including:

·       a professor who has her Ph.D. and teaches electrical engineering—and all of whose siblings, amazingly, are also electrical engineers;

·       a professor who is simultaneously dealing with his divorce and the strike itself, while remaining optimistic and eager to return to class with his students;

·       a professor who introduced me to putting hand warmers inside gloves or mitts in deep-freeze temperatures--and to whom I am grateful for her thoughtfulness; and

·       a professor who, besides providing insight and intelligent views of the strike, keeps some of us in stitches daily with some side-splitting jokes that always lift the general mood.

Upbeat     
     As we near the end of the fifth week of the strike, with no definite end in sight, outwardly my colleagues never seem in a foul mood, or angry, or otherwise upset. To the contrary: every day there are lots of smiles, genial conversations, concern for others on ‘the line,’ and positive but realistic thinking.

Weather     
      Generally, the weather has co-operated, with two horrible exceptions:
1) shortly after the strike started, those of us on the late-afternoon shift had to endure non-stop driving rain and powerful wind for the last three hours of our four-hour strike shift; and   
2) One website says Friday, Nov. 10 was between minus 5 C and minus 12 C (https://www.accuweather.com/en/ca/london/n6g/november-weather/55489). That day the combination of freezing temperature and bitter wind was bone-chilling and I often wondered if any of us on the picket line were in our right minds, and why we were there.
     Oddly, while I cursed the weather and the strike itself that frigid Friday, I never thought seriously about leaving early. I believed if I left the picket line early just because I was cold, while my colleagues persevered, I’d be letting them down, and—equally as important—I’d be letting myself down.
Nearing an End?     
     Now, as this Ontario college faculty strike nears the end of its remarkable fifth week, my picketing peers and I hope for a satisfying end to this ordeal, so faculty can return to our respective workplaces and our students.
      While the strike is tedious and worrisome for various reasons, it has been bearable because of the kindness, good humor, and thoughtfulness of my picketing colleagues; and because of the verbal support of some of my former students who came to speak with me on the picket line.
      Thus, for me the strike really has been an experience in perseverance, humility, and gratitude. And with any luck, the next time I see any of my students they will be in a classroom, not visiting me on the picket line.

Strike!

      As a community college professor in Ontario I have the dubious distinction of now being on strike, for the first time in my working life. I didn’t aspire or vote to go on strike.
      I would rather be working and earning my full pay and helping my students have a successful semester. But I feel compelled, for various practical and philosophical reasons, to join my colleagues on the picket line in this legal strike.
     The majority of faculty, including professors, counsellors and librarians, supposedly voted in favor of the strike; now in its sixth day. The strike started Tuesday, October 17.
     At Fanshawe College in London, where I am pleased to work when we aren’t walking ‘the line,’ there are three four-hour picket line shifts daily at various locations at the college: a) 7 a.m.-11 a.m.; b) 11 a.m.-3 p.m.; and c) 3 p.m.-7 p.m.
      Yesterday, October 23, day five, was absolutely the worst so far, because of the weather.
      A horrible combination of unforgiving wind and rain started slowly around 3:30 p.m. with barely-discernible sprinkles, leading the hopeful among us to naively think the predicted torrent might actually hold off until our four-hour shift was done.
     Not so. 
     The wind and rain gathered steam in tandem; quickly morphing into wicked sheets of rain pelting down, lambasting anyone in its miserable path. The powerful wind and driving rain mercilessly bombarded strikers for the last three hours of the 3-7 p.m. shift.      
     The wind surely would have carried away some picket signs if they weren’t held tightly by the dedicated strikers determined to complete their shift.
     Tolerating this weather attack presumably constitutes 'other related duties.' 
     No doubt some strikers disagree with the strike and are picketing mainly for the money; making sure they stay on ‘the line’ and qualify for their strike pay.
     Some strikers might have other philosophical or ethical reasons for sticking it out on the picket line even in the driving rain.
     Regardless of strikers’ motives for striking, presumably those of us on the picket lines all want the same thing: to get back to work, and to help our students salvage what is left of their semester. 
     These two goals might be easily attained, relatively speaking, if the two sides in this labor dispute—the union (OPSEU), and the College Council—are speaking and listening to each other. 
    But the rumor mill provides some interesting gossip, some or none of which might have some merit or none at all, such as the following questions:
    --is it true both sides haven’t been speaking to each other at all since this strike started on October 17?;
    --is it true some pre-settlement strike activities are pre-planned theatrics to get attention?; and
    --is it true both sides knew from the outset this strike will last about three weeks; long enough for both sides to gain something, but short enough so students can still save their semester and not sue colleges or governments for lost tuition?
     If the two sides are not speaking to each other, as we start Day 6 of the legal strike, the union and the College Council are demonstrating no respect for the strikers who just want to work, and no respect for Ontario's college students whose academic success is potentially in jeopardy through no fault of theirs.     
    If the union and the College Council really are not speaking to each other yet, six days after this strike started on October 17, their dilly-dallying is also effectively holding the college faculty and Ontario’s college students hostage.
    The striking faculty and the students need the two sides to reach a satisfactory solution soon.
    The union and the College Council must put aside their game-playing and posturing and disrespect for faculty and students, and just do what is right.

Reflections on a Daughter's Wedding

        This little saga started in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island: my daughter, Mary Heather Michelle, known as Heather, was born 'all those years ago' at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital around 5:30 a.m. Now, that precious baby is a married woman living in England with a little baby of her own: my new grandson, Jack Edward Michell. Superlatives abound about Jack, this spectacular, remarkable, and beautiful little boy. Need I say more?

        I met Jack for the first time this past weekend as family and friends from across the ocean and across this country came together for his parents' wonderful wedding and reception in Halifax, Nova Scotia; savoring the sights of the glorious Halifax harbor, and honoring their wedding hosts on this memorable day. 

       This wedding weekend was also notable since I saw my beautiful daughter Heather for the first time in six years, and finally met her long-time partner and my new son-in-law, the charming, handsome and eminently likeable James Michell.
       Heather and James got engaged about two years ago in Brussels, Belgium in a scene right out of a classic Hollywood movie during a weekend away from their home in England. As Heather told me, in an extraordinary telephone call just minutes later, James surprised her with an engagement ring as their car in a Ferris wheel started its descent, approaching the ground. I have never heard her sound as happy as she did that night.
       Heather has a healthy sense of adventure and curiosity about new places. So, I wasn’t completely surprised when, several years ago, after earning her university education, including her teaching degree, in her home country, Canada, she announced she was moving to England to pursue her new teaching career. At the time, she couldn’t have known she would, one day, serendipitously meet James, in his home country, England; eventually culminating in little Jack’s birth six months ago—did I mention he’s my new grandson?
    At the time of this writing, Heather, James, and Jack are enjoying a well-earned vacation at one of Prince Edward Island’s fabled beaches; renting a cottage only a short walk to the sand and surf. For Heather and James, this respite-by-the-sea could be just what the doctor ordered.
      For much of the past year or so they have, understandably, been preoccupied and perhaps sometimes stressed by organizing wedding and reception plans, largely from a distance in England, for their very special wedding weekend; with invaluable help from wedding professionals and hoteliers in Canada with whom they could communicate easily and electronically.
    Now, with the formal events completed they can try to relax. Now, at the beach, Heather, James and little Jack can be just a family trying to enjoy the summer sun, without the pressure of having to finalize plans for the wedding, reception, and christening.
     From what I saw at the wedding and reception, and at Jack's christening in Heather's hometown, Charlottetown last weekend, his mommy and daddy seem relaxed and comfortable with their precious little boy, and appear to be relishing and enjoying their new roles as parents. Ultimately, seeing my own little girl become a woman over the years who now has a husband and little baby of her own seems strange, but wonderful.
     For my part, this new grandpa gig took a bit of time to process in relation to myself--i.e. how could I, of all people, be a grandfather since that only happens to old people, doesn't it? And my favorite: how could Heather do this to me, especially since I'm so young (at heart, anyway)?
    But now, with my fresh memories of talking to Jack and holding him as often as I could in Halifax and Charlottetown, this new role of grandpa feels pretty special. And I feel sure Jack is destined, in the coming years, to continue enriching the lives of those who already love him dearly, in ways we can only try to imagine at this point.
   

 

Fallacy Undermines Scheer’s Conservative Victory

     In heralding the election of Andrew Scheer as the new leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, an online Google news headline trumpeted, “Is Andrew Scheer the smart choice or the safe choice?”
     Yet, this headline, which could have been written by the author of the story, CBC’s Aaron Wherry, or by someone at Google news, unnecessarily undermines the significance of Scheer’s victory; and underscores the headline writer’s possible biases, intellectual laziness, or apparent ignorance of other possible reasons Scheer was elected, besides being just a ‘safe’ or ‘smart’ choice.
Only One or the Other?
     Why does Scheer’s election have to be considered only one or the other: a smart choice or a safe choice? Can’t his election be a combined smart choice and safe choice, rolled into one? Can’t there also be other reasons he was elected, in addition to possibly being a ‘smart’ or ‘safe’ choice?
Fallacies Abound
     In teaching college students about logical fallacies, or errors in reasoning/errors in thinking, I tell them there are likely at least a hundred or more logical fallacies. Teaching about logical fallacies is typically also a key aspect of many university Philosophy programs, to help students learn to think in broader contexts, and to be more open-minded in their thinking and writing.
Five Common Logical Fallacies
      With my college students I focus on five common logical fallacies I contend are used regularly by many average people to convince others their ideas are right or better than others’ ideas; and are also intentionally used by advertisers and politicians to persuade or manipulate people to think or behave in certain ways.
Common Usage Can Be Harmless
      In fairness, many people might not know about logical fallacies, so likely don’t use them intentionally, or to be purposely deceptive or malicious. Many people might unknowingly use some logical fallacies in conversation since they can be common and often harmless ways of expressing ideas, and trying to persuade others to think as we do about a certain topic.
Focus on One Logical Fallacy Here    
     The Google news headline in the Andrew Scheer election story (May 27, 2017) used one of the five logical fallacies I discuss with students; the ‘either-or’ fallacy--also known as the ‘black-or-white’ fallacy.
      This logical fallacy says clearly or implies there are only two ways to think of a certain topic. This is painfully evident in the Google news headline about Andrew Scheer’s victory as the new leader of the Conservative Party of Canada: “Is Andrew Scheer the smart choice or the safe choice?”
Can Be Intentionally Deceptive
     Many people might not realize a news headline writer, or an advertiser or politician, is purposely using a logical fallacy, such as the either-or fallacy, to manipulate them to buy a certain product, or to think a certain way, or to think there are only two reasons something has happened--when there might be various choices or several reasons that something occurred.
      Thus, the online news headline about Andrew Scheer’s election as the new Conservative leader, “Is Andrew Scheer the smart choice or the safe choice?,” is illogical, possibly biased, and seemingly deceptive.
Unfair Negative Messages 
      This mere 10-word headline manages to send three negative messages simultaneously: 1) it implicitly dismisses any other possible positive reasons Scheer won his party's leadership race; 2) it implicitly negates any worthwhile qualities and abilities Scheer brings to his new job; and 3) it implicitly and unnecessarily demeans Scheer's victory over more than a dozen registered competitors.
Why Only Two Options?
      When all is said and done, why does Scheer have to be considered either only the smart choice, or only the safe choice? Why can’t he be perceived as the best choice for various thoughtful and/or practical reasons at this point for the Conservative Party?
       Disclaimer: My comments here are independent of anyone related to the online Google news story in question, about Andrew Scheer’s election. I am not a member of any political party, I don’t know anyone who knows Andrew Scheer, and I don’t know him and have never communicated to or with him in any way; directly or indirectly. I also don’t know the author of this CBC news story, Aaron Wherry, and I don’t know anyone connected to Google or Google news.

 

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.