Watching Lance Armstrong...

... on Larry King, and I have to say he comes across as highly credible, to me at least. Obviously there are a lot of questions still to be answered about the L'Equipe story, but here's one way to think about the whole affair. The issue is not just whether Armstrong cheated in one or all of his seven Tour de France victories, but whether the cyclists he beat did. Everyone knows that doping is rampant in cycling, right? Yet every year scores of riders complete the Tour, pass their urine tests, and are declared clean. That either means that they were clean, or they were just able to beat the tests. We don't know for sure. So there are four possible scenarios, depending on whether you think a) Armstrong is doping or b) the field is. Scenario 1. Call this the "naive" scenario. Armstrong is clean, and so is the rest of the field. If that's the case, then Armstrong is full value for his seven victories. Scenario 2. The "cynical" scenario. Armstrong's doping, but so is everybody else. In which case, it's a level playing field. Everyone's doped up, but Armstrong is consistently faster than everyone else. Say what you like about his character, but again his record stands. Scenario 3. The "hero" scenario. Armstrong competes and wins, clean, against a bunch of performance-enhanced dopers. His record looks all the more impressive in this light. Scenario 4. The "L'Equipe" scenario. Armstrong's the only one doping, stealing an unfair advantage over his honest, upstanding rivals. This scenario would certainly be grounds for stripping him of his trophies (or whatever they give the Tour winner). But it's also the least plausible. After all, if Armstrong's been doping, despite passing the tests each year, that suggests the tests aren't much good. But if they aren't, then we have no reason to believe he's the only one who's been cheating. He's just the only one who got caught. So in three of the four possible scenarios -- and the only three that have any likelihood -- he comes out a winner, at least in the sense of being genuinely faster than his rivals, on the basis of his own effort and ability.

Not a separatist -- just unqualified

So she's not a separatist, and has never belonged to a political party. Bully for her. Was she a separatist in the past, even if she did not actually join the party? Does she renounce her past statements, and those of her husband? For that matter, will she renounce her French citizenship? How far our expectations have sunk. Because she's not currently working to bring about the destruction of the country, that makes her an appropriate choice for Governor General? She drinks toasts with the founder of the FLQ, her husband hangs around with Pierre Laporte's murderers, she's supposed to represent the Queen as a citizen of the French Republic, and she's known outside Quebec, if at all, as the presenter of hysterically anti-American documentaries on Newsworld.  She has no record of service to the country, no outstanding accomplishments to her name, no specialized knowledge of law, politics or the constitution. In a crisis, what credibility would she have? If the minority government were to attempt to rule without the confidence of the House -- again -- would anyone listen to her opinion on the matter? If the country were to be plunged into the constitutional void of a unilateral secession bid, would Canadians rally to her side -- whichever side that was? This isn't a sales clerk we're hiring. This is supposed to be the position of supreme honour and prestige in the country, one with important symbolic and substantive roles. It should be filled by titans, revered national icons, whose love of country is reflected in the love their country has for them. In this, of all nations, does it make sense to choose as the focus of allegiance a dual citizen whose views on Quebec's place in Canada are at best uncertain? At this, of all times, is it not a requirement of the job that its occupant be able to command the unswerving respect and loyalty of Canadians?