Newfoundland–Problem Solving and Accepting Basic Realities

Life is not a problem to be solved, but a reality to be experienced. - Soren Kierkegaard

Fortune falls heavily on those for whom she's unexpected. The one always on the lookout easily endures. - Seneca

When my grandfather was alive, he was once asked by a local merchant to build a chimney for him.  The local merchant had a reputation for ripping people off and many people warned my grandfather that if he built the chimney, the merchant would likely find a way to not pay him.

Undeterred, my grandfather built the chimney but when the merchant inspected the work, he created reasons why he wouldn’t pay for my grandfather’s efforts..

When the merchant lit his first fire in the fireplace, the smoke, instead of rising up the chimney, billowed back into the room.  A visual inspection of the chimney revealed nothing obvious that would cause this and the merchant called upon my grandfather to fix the defective chimney.

“Pay me first”, insisted my grandfather, “And I will fix it.”

The merchant reluctantly paid for the chimney, my grandfather climbed up onto the roof and dropped a large beach rock down the flue, breaking the pane of glass he had strategically placed across the chimney about half way down.

Some years later ….

One day when I was young, my uncle’s car battery had died and needed a boost.  My father and my uncle had a single piece of wire (not a set of boosting cables) but as his father before him, my father was not without a solution.

They connected the positive terminals of my uncle’s car and my father’s, pushed the bumpers of the two cars together (they were chrome in those days) and the dead battery was brought back to Life.

How did this work?  Because my father knew that the two vehicles were negatively grounded to the chassis (as they are now) and that pushing the two electricity-conducting chrome bumpers together would provide enough of a connection to accomplish the desired effect of boosting the dead battery.

Two hard-working, honest men, my father and my grandfather, who looked at the problem at-hand, accepted the realities of the situation and then solved the problem in classic, creative Newfoundlander style (Bell Islander style, to be precise).

I try to bring the same level of pragmatic, evidence-based, reality-accepting, problem-solving approach to everything I do.

And that’s why when I look at the current situation of my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I wonder whether any kind of hope is warranted.

The evidence at first blush says no.  Running massive deficits year-over-year is not a recipe for success and difficult decisions, always punishing one or more groups, are often “talked around” during election time since bad news doesn’t buy votes.

Providing schools to a sparse population spread around the coastline of the 11th largest island in the world seems impossible to do well.  With little money spread over a large area, it not only diminishes equal accessibility of education but potentially the quality of it as compared to other jurisdictions.

Maintaining infrastructure in an environment with so many harsh elements and long distances to cover seems as hope-filled as the dog who hopes to catch its tail.

With the Province at or near the top in nasty health statistics such as heart attack, stroke and diabetes rates, the healthcare system is also strained since, like education, it is difficult to offer high quality services to a few people spread across such a large area.

On top of that, layer on one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, diminished revenue from its primary source of revenue (oil) and have one of the smallest tax bases in the country demand the same level of services as found anywhere in the country and you have a problem.

And that’s just for starters.

Such things are exacerbated by the complexities that politicians and bureaucrats bring to the situation.

Politicians and bureaucrats, typical of any human being, bring a mix of intention and competence to their role.

They range from the intelligent to the idiot …

.... from the public-serving to the self-serving ….

.... from the servant leader to the purely selfish ….

.... from the informed to the misinformed to the uninformed ….

.... from the innocent to the conniving ….

.... from the strategic to the hapless dreamer ….

.... from the tactically astute to the random executor ….

.... from the evidenced-based to the “instinct is better than data” crowd.

And on top of all that, there is another grim reality.

Human beings (voters) are not inspired by reality and in fact, will often avoid anyone who reminds them of it.

Reality rarely buys votes unless it is good news and that is often hard to come by in economies of places such as Newfoundland and Labrador.

However, in such situations, votes can be generated by sharing unsubstantiated dreams of gold-paved streets or pegging bad news (real or perceived) on the other candidate.

We are inspired by hope of a better future, the promise of great things and the belief that all things can be overcome and we run from people who can’t give us this.

And based upon this, politicians sell hope and bright futures without having the foggiest idea of how they will accomplish anything or even if anything can be accomplished at all (and some have no intention of trying to accomplish anything, running for office for their own selfish needs).

Would you vote for someone who told you that we faced gloom and doom with the possibility that our problems can’t be solved at all but if they can be solved, will require phenomenal sacrifice on our part?

Most would not. 

Would you vote for someone who indicates “I have no idea what needs to be fixed or how I would fix it but give me a chance”?

Unlikely.

And so we accept the promises of politicians in blind faith and without evidence and get frustrated when the next round of politicians produces the same result as the last lot that we just threw out.

Meanwhile, politicians discover a few things (or knew them all along):

1. Things like economies pretty much run themselves and cannot be turned on a dime as claimed during elections
2. Economies are not easily turned in a positive direction because of human interaction or desire
3. Economies can be easily turned in a negative direction because of human interaction
4. Reality doesn’t care what you think, especially when evidence is intentionally ignored
5. Things we don’t like have reasons for existing which we unfortunately discover once we are exposed to the history of them
6. Regardless of the state left behind by a departing politician and regardless (mostly) of the competence or incompetence of departing politicians, most find lucrative careers that far exceed the career potential that existed before their political career was launched.

The final point reminds me of the old cartoon showing a doctor and patient having a serious conversation in the doctor’s office.

“I have good news and bad news”, says the doctor.

“What’s the bad news?”, asks the patient nervously.

“You have one month to live”, replies the doctor tersely.

Shocked, the patient exclaims, “If that’s the bad news, what is the good news?”

The doctor smiles.

“See that cute receptionist out front?”, the doctor asks, “I’m having sex with her twice a week.”

News, good and bad, is entirely perspective-based in its definition and impact.

The Bottom Line

I have not found in the last 20+ years, a single politician anywhere, including in Newfoundland and Labrador, who can use an evidence-based position that the Province’s current and future situations are things to be feel comfortable about (with the exception of those who use politics to substantively grow their personal interests).

I have also not found a single politician who even likes to be asked for such things.

Fortunately for politicians, there are very few of us who demand evidenced-based answers and so we can be easily ignored.

I hear lots of rhetoric and shouting about having the answers while becoming angry with people who ask for evidence.

I see lots of finger pointing at the previous administration or the opposite side of the Legislature as the real reason why things are not working well.

I watch politicians who point at those of us who demand data and decry our “negativity” as a means of deflecting questions that are difficult or impossible to answer.  That’s like a car driver suddenly exclaiming to a passenger in a car, “Hang on, the brakes just failed” and having the passenger respond with, “Why do you always have to be so dramatic?”

As my father and grandfather before me, I try to look at the situation at hand, the realities and complexities of the situation and the evidence that describes my reality before coming up with a solution.

If I don’t honestly acknowledge my reality, I have no way of creating a meaningful path to a solution or a better future.

I wish the electorate would do the same because if they did, we might actually start electing politicians who aren’t afraid to campaign on reality instead of fantasy.

Meanwhile, Seneca’s words come back from thousands of years ago in timeless poignancy and appropriateness:  Fortune falls heavily on those for whom she's unexpected. The one always on the lookout easily endures.

I wonder if any politician could refute what I just wrote using evidence and deliver such a refutation in a thoughtful, respectful, evidence-based, solution-focused way.

Because any politician who can do that is the type of politician we need in larger quantities before we reach the tipping point where it won’t matter who we elect.

I think such people are out there (and there are a small minority who have already been elected) but the dirty, muck-raking, being on-call 24/7, thankless world of politics keeps most good people away.

I think we must do more than merely fret and complain about our reality and our future.

I think we must accept realities and demand that politicians speak to us in the language of informed realities and the language of evidenced-based solutions.

I think we must demand that politicians serve us and not their own needs.

There are many things that I think about but what I am more interested in is this.

What do you think?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

#MeToo–An Incomplete and Inauthentic Dialog

No one man can, for any considerable time, wear one face to himself, and another to the multitude, without finally getting bewildered as to which is the true one. - Nathaniel Hawthorne

Authenticity means erasing the gap between what you firmly believe inside and what you reveal to the outside world. - Adam Grant

Authenticity is a virtue. But just as you can have too little authenticity, you can also have too much. - Adam Grant

I’ve been struggling with the #MeToo dialog since the Weinstein explosion first erupted.

It’s not that the conversation is not important in the wake of revelations of predatorial actions by people with deviant beliefs or supersized egos fueled by their need for unnecessary exploitation of power.  Such miscreants must be revealed.

It’s more that I find the conversation to be lacking or out of balance in some ways, expressed inappropriately in others and to be completely hypocritical in others.

There are the obvious public sources of confusion for me.

For example, people have questioned the morals of President Trump with his “grab her by the p___y comment” and yet welcome former President Clinton as a desired speaker despite credible accusations of rape against him and a long history of using his position of authority to exert inappropriate influence over women.

Clinton is, after all, much more affable than Trump – you’d be surprised how much this influences people’s perspectives about someone.

Senator Al Franken, who once expressed his concern over President Trump’s comment, now finds that he needs to defend himself against serious allegations that may be worse than a “mere phrase” (if you can call it that).  I wonder how many other Trump haters are lying in the wings, petrified of their own behavior being revealed.

I am also concerned about the potential of some accusers destroying the careers of others before allegations are proven true or relevant.  It seems that merely saying something can destroy a career without due process.

But as I examine my own career and experiences, greater sources of confusion arise for me regarding how long such issues have been incubating “in silence”.

Dave, a male client of mine at a Wall St. bank years ago, was notorious for belittling women and gay men and women.  One time he, a Senior Vice President of the Bank, called a female VP into a meeting.  When she arrived, he held out a sheet of paper and said “Here – I need 5 copies of this.”  After she complied, he told her she was excused.

Stop being hyper-sensitive, some might say – it’s just photocopying.

Perhaps.

One day, Dave looked down the boardroom table and seeing Gary, a gay man with a ponytail sitting at the other end of the table, said, “I didn’t know we invited f*ing faggots to this meeting.”

We were stunned.

Am I still being hyper-sensitive?

When people reported Dave to HR, they discovered that he was more powerful than HR and that HR lived in fear that he might fire them.

He and his abusive, untouchable ways continued at the Bank for years until his retirement.

Meanwhile at another Wall St. client a couple of years later, I was consistently sexually harassed by my client, an alcoholic lush who seemed to need to sleep with every man in her presence.  I was to learn that there was a method to her madness.

When I got tired of it, I reported it to HR.  They first dismissed my concern, indicating that most men would feel flattered that a woman of such power and influence would want to sleep with them (a double standard for men facing harassment?).  When I persisted, they indicated that a review process could only be initiated if her manager agreed to bring disciplinary action against her.

Requesting such an action would have been tricky – she had had an extramarital affair with every manager she ever had at the Bank, including her current one, and so there would be no action taken against her for fear of personal retribution (the method to her madness is revealed).

She had slept her way to the top or as one fellow VP told me, she had “sucked her way to the top”.  Who was being more disrespectful, her or the VP with such an observation?

One time she brought in chocolate chip cookies on a Friday afternoon and distributed them to specific team members.  I fortunately declined.  I say fortunately because one of my colleagues called me from Washington DC the next day, totally freaked out and with no recollection of how he had gotten there.

It turned out that the cookies had been laced with hash and “other stuff” but it was “just in fun”.

Discipline against this woman was impossible.

She held sexual leverage over the only man authorized to do anything in the Bank and the police would do nothing without evidence.

Meanwhile …

I knew a bitter, man-hating member of NOW (the National Organization of Women) years ago who claimed that equality would only be achieved when women were in charge of everything.  She based this assertion on the general level of disrespect that apparently all men dished out to all women.

Then one day, as a group of us were walking down the street and passed a man walking towards us in track pants, she turned to a colleague and said “Wow – did you see the one-eyed trouser snake on that guy?  Look how he hangs in those pants – who wouldn’t want a piece of that?”

I called her on her inconsistency, that she demanded respect from the opposite gender while making remarks like that, and an argument ensued.

We never spoke again (by her choice).

Meanwhile in the media world ….

I’ve noticed over the last few years, a growing number of commercials that poke at the failure of men.

Examples include such things as handyman commercials promoting services to women to repair the incompetent work of husbands (or to do what their lazy husbands won’t do), alarm system companies describing wives complaining about the totally worthless system their incompetent husband insisted on installing, etc.

While some people may find such commercials amusing, as a man, I find them insulting.

How would women’s groups react if we ran commercials from the other side, describing lazy, stupid women who kept letting men down?

What would happen if we introduced racial or gender slurs into such commercials?

A windshield company in my area runs a commercial on the radio that ends with the catchy line “come in and show us your crack”, an obvious, intentional double-entendre.

If I went to that establishment, walked up to the woman behind the counter and said to her, “I came here to show you my crack”, she might call the police, depending on how I delivered the message.  It’s fun to say it but not so much fun to receive it.

Watching a national network TV program the other night, four women were having a discussion about the post-Weinstein world and agreed that it was time for all men to feel the sting and shame of disrespect.

Do they really believe that an eye for an eye will solve anything or that punishing all men for the disrespectful behavior of a minority of men is fair?

They concluded by saying that we need laws in place to prevent problems in the future.

We do which leads me to my next concern.

I remember a few years ago as salacious stories leaked out of the Alberta Legislature of highly inappropriate behavior by elected officials that included affairs between elected officials, elected officials and staff and elected officials and outsiders. I was shocked as the details made Fifty Shades of Grey look like a Dr. Seuss book.  Interesting romps around the world on the taxpayer dime, oral sex in men’s rooms performed by elected officials at official functions while their spouses waited outside and the like were astonishing and disturbing.

When I spoke to my elected representative about my concerns regarding how people could be compromised into doing the wrong things against the best interest of the people if these secrets were used as leverage, he replied that he understood where I was coming from but that sometimes values and ethics needed to be put aside for the greater good of the Party.

Not to be outdone, rumors of everything salacious under the sun occurring in the Newfoundland and Labrador Legislature are common knowledge, with the same mix of affairs between elected officials, elected officials and staff and elected officials and outsiders (including lobbyists).

It’s such common knowledge that no one cares.  In discussing it up with one elected official, I was told that you need to look past that and see the good in the person.  I argued that I wasn’t seeing the bad in the person but I was concerned about the impact on innocent families and the potential for a secret to be used against an official in some form of extortion.  My argument was rejected. 

Another elected official complained to me (why me, I can’t do anything about it) incessantly about elected officials sleeping with each other, sleeping with lobbyists and even using sex in exchange for legislative support but when I pointed out that they could do something to put an end to it, the response was that this could compromise their position in the Party or impact future election possibilities and so it wasn't a realistic option.

A third elected official told me that the elected individual having an affair with a staff member was really the victim and that outing the individual would hurt their family unnecessarily and unfairly.

I’m sorry – that person has already hurt their family unnecessarily and unfairly.

The family just don’t know …. yet.

Two of the three elected officials I mentioned are women.

Recourse is difficult.

Bring such news out in the light of day and you face SLAPP lawsuits, libel suits, etc.

Bring it to the press or some oversight group and you have to hope that they haven’t been compromised or you face the other possibility that the news is so common, that it’s a yawner of no interest to them.  One reporter to whom such stories were reported to did nothing because he was having an affair with communications personnel working for the person facing some of the allegations.  In another situation, an individual in an oversight group that protects women is best friends with many of the people being accused so justice won’t come from that corner either.

Meanwhile, the people on the inside who aren’t participating turn a blind eye towards such behavior, often for personal, selfish interests or perhaps they face the reality that someone has something on them also.

I wonder what those people would think if they were on the receiving end, if their husband or wife participated in such things (or were extorted as a result) or if their mother, wife, daughter or sister got caught up with someone of influence exerting unnecessary power with their influence.

I wonder what the legal system would think if a private corporation had such things going on and where such activity was encouraged or ignored.

And so the conversation is not as easy or one-sided as #MeToo would imply.

My point with all of this is that this is not just a “women being disrespected by men” issue.

We have some serious underlying societal issues that, while surfacing because of Weinstein, go much deeper and broader than one gender being disrespected by another.

We have been overrun by a lack of respect for ourselves and for each other, regardless of which gender we represent, and a need to exploit others for personal or professional gain.

And until we get back to respect for each other, regardless of gender, race, religion, financial status, skin color, etc., events like the Weinstein moment, while media worthy, are only the tip of the iceberg.

The Bottom Line

The sad part of all of this is that as people observe the #MeToo conversation explode, many can relate to stories much worse.

It’s easy for Hollywood types or other public figures to come out and admit they’ve been assaulted, they have considered suicide, they have faced gender bias, they suffer from depression, etc.  They are worshipped and admired for their strength and courage.

The average citizen, unfairly and unfortunately, faces a much more difficult personal and professional battle making the same assertions.

Many people have observed such evil acts themselves and done nothing, either because they felt it wasn’t their business, someone had dirt on them, they didn’t want to compromise some potential gain for themselves or they were afraid of the repercussions of being vocal against ignorance.  Many of those who reach out to me with observations or complaints, having the power to fix it and doing nothing with that power, get little time or respect from me.

The more painful stories for me are from the people who have been hurt by the evil or indifference of others and could not find a way to bring justice and peace into their lives.

Many have reached out to me in recent months and shared their stories.

They are staggering stories of abuse, mistreatment and abuse of power by people who should be in jail.

However, they are helpless, either for fear of their job, for fear of their Life or because, as in my HR stories, the people in authority could or would not take action.

We don’t need revenge and anger in these conversations – this doesn’t solve much and will likely make problems worse.

We don’t need apathy and indifference, either because we are lazy or because standing up doesn’t serve our own personal interests.

We shouldn’t accept that people need to hide in fear while others use or abuse them.

We don’t need more legislation to prevent abuse – we have plenty of it already.

We do need an environment where victims, men and women, can feel safe reporting their pain, regardless of the nature of their concern. 

We need an environment where people are not forced into waiting for someone else to come forward first, creating a détente that produces silence.

We need an environment where observers can safely report pain when they observe it and where no one else within the environment will do anything about it (including the victim).

We need an environment where an individual’s power and authority, in business or government, doesn’t become a hammer under which people cower and refuse to stand up to them.

We need to acknowledge that not all men are to blame for all women’s problems, contrary to the point that one woman tried to make to me.  When she told me this and I countered with all of the work I have done with battered women’s shelters and the like for years, she said that denial was proof that I was more to blame than I realized or that I did so because of a private guilt I was struggling with.

Hatred has no logic or reasoning and must be approached with caution since ulterior or misguided motives may be in play.

I know of many situations where women have contributed to women’s issues, either being the protagonist in a situation or doing nothing when another woman was in trouble.  While this is the exception and not the rule, it happens more than we want to admit and must also be part of the dialog.

We need men and women of strong character, morals and values to stand together and out all poor behavior, whether it is perpetrated by their gender or the opposite side.

We need to listen more and be more aware of the plight of others around us.

We need to stop being hypocrites, accepting the hurt of others but only becoming angry if such activity ends up in our own world and affects us directly.  Whether we realize it or not, all abuse affects all of us directly … always.

We need to respect ourselves and stand by our values more often and with unwavering courage, because if our foundational values are poor or we are afraid to defend them, then we won’t see the problems developing around us (or our contribution to those problems).

We need to recognize that seeing the good in people is not the same as turning a blind eye to the bad or evil in them.

And until we have these things, Weinstein will just be the tip of iceberg.  Many will continue to suffer in silence while miscreants practice their twisted arts, relying on this silence to exploit others.

Meanwhile, others will take advantage of the noise and anger that has erupted for their own misguided reasons that have nothing to do with defending victims.

There are a lot of voices that are silent that shouldn't be and a lot of hypocrite voices that should put up or shut up.

Otherwise, we need to stop acting surprised, disappointed or angry when this stuff explodes or when we are directly impacted by it.

Because we will have been be part of the problem all along and not part of the solution.

Are you a part of the problem or part of the solution?

Are you sure?

Can you prove it?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

PS:  Readers who are quick to respond in anger regarding the notion that the majority of abuse is perpetrated by men against women are missing the point, should recognize that statistics aren't the point and that people who are in a statistical minority while experiencing abuse don't care that they are a minority.  The point is that we need a healthier world for everyone.

If we can't get to an agreement on that fundamental fact, then we will never solve the problems facing us because someone will always be facing oppression or abuse.

On a side note, I have a personal belief that we are karmically responsible for actions that we take and actions that we don't take that were within our reach.  For this reason, I believe that people who choose not to take action in the defense of others karmically owns the result.

---

Addendum - The Overreaction / Inappropriate Reaction Camp - November 20, 2017

In Sweden, women are reacting to the assaults committed recently by primarily immigrant males by announcing concerts where only women, trans-people and non-binary people only will be allowed.  This will allow them (so they claim) to guarantee that no sexual assaults will take place during the concerts.  I guess this also implies that gay men may be on the radar to assault women since they are also excluded from the concerts.

Such over-reaction would be akin to having a male-only concert where we would exclude women so that the "sluts and whores" present would not tempt us or a concert that excludes all immigrant males because we "just know they are all inherently evil".  The outcry would be significant (and warranted).

It goes to show that hastily embraced labels and generalizations that originate from overreaction or poor data create more divisiveness and problems than solutions.

But when has that stopped some people in the past?

The “Honorable Members” of the Newfoundland and Labrador Government

Character is the only secure foundation of the state. - Calvin Coolidge

The qualities of a great man are vision, integrity, courage, understanding, the power of articulation, and profundity of character. - Dwight Eisenhower

I used to muse a fair bit over the years about the Newfoundland and Labrador political scene but I found that for the most part, while my musings evoked a lot of emotion in people, those same people rarely took action, preferring to complain from the sidelines, on social media or in their local coffee shop. 

My insane work schedule these days further limits my musings but occasionally something comes to my attention that bothers me so much that I need to work it out in a musing of some sort, whether it be in my journal or here in my blog.

I’ve been receiving a lot of communication over the last year or more regarding the activity of the Honorable Members of the Newfoundland and Labrador Government.

I’m not referring to the politicians themselves but rather, their “honorable members”.

It seems that the political world that exists in the Confederation Building has become overrun with predators who have learned at one point or another that one of our most basic primal needs serves as a useful tool to accomplish what they need (often to the detriment of others).

Stories of rampant infidelity trouble me but I’m not a prude, I’m not ignorant of the ways of the world nor do I judge people who prefer to throw their families and relationships under the bus as they (including Ministers of the Crown) roam the hallways of government, using their honorable member to satisfy their primal needs for sex and power (this includes certain female MHAs and their equivalent “portfolio”).

Judgment of their deeds, where appropriate and deserved, comes soon enough at the hands of others or the Ultimate Authority.

I don’t judge the married MHA who was confirmed to have an Ashley Madison account (verified by his own credit card).

I don’t judge the MHA who has a diaper fetish (not a need for adult diapers) and likes to be treated like a baby in private.

I don’t judge the spouses who have made the choice to turn a blind eye to the deeds of their partners in exchange for the benefits they derive from the power and prestige bestowed upon their partners.  I do feel badly for the ones who don’t really understand what is happening – their families will be hurt at some point by the actions of their partners.

It is true that I have been known to make a few digs here and there, such as the time when a minister was honored with new court title and I asked him on Twitter whether he told his girlfriend or his wife first.

And yes, I do judge the senior Liberal bureaucrat who has helped protect a family member from prosecution.  Many years ago, his family member had a paper route and had asked a 7-year-old boy if he would help him.  For curious reasons, the paper route went off into the woods where the family member offered the boy a nickel to be allowed to be shown “what a screw was”.  In the conversation that followed, the boy quickly determined what was happening and fled the scene untouched.  Even at the age of 7, I wasn’t that stupid but I have since learned that the behavior of this individual continued for years unabated.  Unfortunately, what I experienced cannot be used as grounds for charges and others must be willing to step forward.  Speaking in hushed tones or in private confessions of a secret do not bring people to justice and justice would be difficult to obtain when that person is protected by someone with power.

Lifestyle choices, whether I agree with them or not, are the private business of those who choose them.

For the most part.

Where I do take umbrage to someone’s lusty, licentious needs is when such needs are used to intentionally harm others or when they open the door to creating harm for others. 

When male MHAs offer or demand sex from female MHAs in exchange for favors or support of legislation, it opens the door to the female MHA (or the male one, if the female one is the instigator) feeling compromised, potentially threatening their work, their ability to retain their portfolio and their intention to serve the people as they were elected to do.

The fact that for some women, keeping their job (whether elected, appointed or hired) depends on their ability to be “a part of the team” is tremendously disconcerting.  While we in the business world understand the ramifications of being caught making such demands, it seems that those who make the rules find no issue in breaking them.  In one case where I have screen shots of the demands, I was told by police that the victim must come forward herself, which she is very hesitant to do.  Too often the women in such situations are intimidated or humiliated into silence, some fear that their naivety makes them look stupid and yes, some women encouraged or allowed “an exchange” to happen for their own gain before they realized they had gone too far and now they can’t say anything for fear of personal disgrace.

What disturbs me equally are the many women who know this is going on but accept it and say nothing.  They may express pain, concern or disgust over it in private but publicly they say nothing.  They are the embodiment of Martin Luther King when he said, “One who condones evil is just as guilty as the one who perpetrates it.” or Lieutenant General David Morrison who noted, “The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.”

And as I noted previously, some are active, willful participants, harvesting their own benefits from such actions.

In addition to creating a toxic environment that would sink most businesses or business people who dared to partake in such miscreant behavior, there is also the potential that people who participate in such things open themselves up to extortion.

For example, If news of the MHA with the diaper fetish came out (or, God forbid, a photo of him), that MHA could be leveraged, with the person on the other end of the lever demanding cash or some sort of government gift in exchange for silence.

When MHAs, employees or consultants have been intimidated to put out or get out in order to accomplish their own work or when they could be compromised through extortion, government ceases to be of and for the people but rather, of and for the people who hold the secrets.

While this is not unusual for governments in general (to be at the whim of those on the other end of a secret), use of behavior that intimidates people or makes use of tactics that are illegal everywhere else should be considered unacceptable.

Shouldn’t it?

The Bottom Line

Secrets have always been a part of government and business and those who have been compromised regret the impact when those secrets are revealed.

But when those secrets hurt innocent people such as family members unaware of what is going on, MHAs being coerced into compromising situations in order to get their own work done, workers being intimidated into submission to keep their own job or similar evil acts, we have a problem.

When those secrets can be used to compromise a Minister into performing any task at the request of a master of extortion, we have a problem.

When people who observe it do nothing to fix it, we have a problem.

When people who believe they are a guiding post of ethics, character and morals and are a role model for young people demonstrate behavior that doesn’t portray any of these attributes, we have a problem.

The dilemma with problems is that they continue to grow in scale, frequency and impact unless we choose to do something to solve them.  We may think these problems do not affect us but eventually our analysis is proven to be flawed and we claim surprise or indignation as a result.

The other dilemma is that there are many good people inside the Legislature, whether elected, appointed or hired, whose efforts and intentions are being bent, interfered with or thwarted entirely while people use their primal wiring of lust to satisfy their primal need for power.

Where is the courage for people to stand up and demand better, both inside or outside the Legislature or the courage of others to support those who would do so?

When do we demand better so that the people inside who are capable of doing better and who want to do better are free to execute without fear of intimidation or compromise?

What happens if the list of things I have seen, also in the possession of other people who are more motivated by personal power than I am, decide they want to take down a government unless they get what they want?

Where does it end?

With us, of course.

But that all depends on whether people have the courage, the strength, the wisdom and the will to stand up for what they believe in and to take a stand against behaviors that we are taught to be unethical, immoral and in many cases, illegal.

Or we can make this fodder for social media or coffee house chatter, marveling or being disgusted with it but doing nothing else until something happens that affects us directly.

Doing the latter doesn’t change anything.

In fact, finding a reason to justify why we can’t do something only becomes an excuse, an excuse that translate into ignoring the activity, then condoning it and then supporting it …. making us part of the problem despite our vehement protests to the contrary.

What does change things depends on whether people care and demand better.

Do you?

Be the change you wish to see or stop complaining about it.

In service and servanthood,

Harry

PS Don’t bother asking me for the list of licentious behaviors and the names attached to them.  There are plenty of people who have this information.  Unfortunately, when such deeds are so rampant, there is no shortage of sources of information.  However, my tweets in recent days referencing this behavior have produced calls, texts and emails from MHAs demanding to know who “their evil colleagues” are. Weakly disguised efforts to see if “I am on the list” only make the whole situation more comical and more pathetic.

I wonder what minor event becomes the tipping point that takes out an entire government, only to be replaced by another one that suffers from the same complexities.

---

Addendum – The Initial Reaction – July 20, 2017

After my blog was posted, I was contacted by four MHAs, two men and two women.

The men were outraged at the content and the idea that I had publicly identified them. The curious thing was that I not only didn’t name anyone in this post, I wasn’t even thinking of these two in particular.  When I tried to convince them of this, they didn’t believe me. 

Awkward.

The two women provided curious responses also.

First of all, in an attempt to identify the people I was referring to, they named other people (consistent across both of them) that again, I was not thinking of.  The plot thickens in an environment filled with rumor, conjecture and malfeasance.

The other thing is that they both found the environment incredibly difficult to survive in.  They used words like intimidation, bullying and the like to describe actions directed towards them and other women.  They freely named women who were targeted victims of intimidation and manipulation.  They both identified women who “played the game” with multiple MHAs.  They both admitted to having been offered sex by Ministers in exchange for “whatever”.  They also admitted to having acts of jealousy directed towards them when, having refused the advances of someone, were then accused of doing so only because “they must be sleeping with x”.

They both agreed with me that women should never accept abuse in the workplace or anywhere else.

All good.

However, they both admitted that they were willing to accept all of this in order to retain their seat and to continue doing the work that they do.  They also admitted that they had an acceptable tolerance level of abuse, “a price” as both named it, that allowed them to keep quiet.

Hmmmm …. didn’t they say that abuse was unacceptable?

Both had complained to someone else known to be an active participant in the environment.  Their words won’t create change and they know it but they take solace in knowing that they did talk to someone about it.

Neither is willing to take a public stand against it.

I asked them both to consider the quotes from King and Morrison in regards to saying and doing nothing while acknowledging the toxic environment.  I asked them also to consider how they would feel if they had a daughter, sister or mother caught up in such a situation. 

They are not stupid people but their willful inability to see themselves in the quotes speaks volumes.  I’m not sure either of them agree with my position – that to not take a stand outside of complaining privately makes them part of the problem. 

That’s what we are told in the private sector!

I wonder if they have read the following Government-issued documents:

• Workplace Bullying
• Maintaining a Harassment and Discrimination-Free Workplace
• Harassment and Discrimination Free Workplace
• Preventing Workplace Violence

I assume HR does nothing because they see elected officials as “their boss”.  It’s a curious thing to me, working in an industry where HR heavyweights will sometimes lay into someone for looking at another person the wrong way.

In regards to accepting abuse in order to get work done, I wonder what would happen if one of my executive team were caught behaving as these people behave and when the police and legislators show up, I used the excuse, “You can’t arrest him – do you realize how much work he gets done?”

My team member would still be arrested and I would be humiliated and vilified - rightfully so for demonstrating such ignorance.

As I look at the SMS messages on my phone early this morning, I wonder if they could be used to establish a precedence whereby abuse was allowed in the workplace.

After all, if the legislators embrace it as status quo, why shouldn’t we?

Such thinking is dangerous, destructive and regressive.

Which makes me wonder why it is tolerated (and even embraced) within the highest authority in the Province.

Where are the public outcries amongst women’s groups who likely know this is happening?

Perhaps it serves their interests to stay quiet rather than risk offending “useful friends”.

And how do women expect to create respect in the workplace (whether in Government or elsewhere) when they are unwilling to stand up and demand it?

How indeed?

---

Closing Thoughts (almost - I changed my mind later)

I know from my contacts within the Government and from feedback that some MHAs have sent me to directly that once again, I have stirred up a hornet’s nest.  I have been accused of being immoral or unethical (by the people who committed the acts) for making these observations while they fail to see that had they not committed the acts in the first place, there would be no observations to make.  So in their mind, performing or accepting nefarious acts is not immoral – reporting them is.

I made some observations on social media about naming names, which was met by cries of foul from some who say that such actions will hurt the innocent.  My response to this is that the innocent are already being hurt and that the number of people who are being hurt will continue to grow as long as miscreant behavior is not addressed.

I find the ultimate message here to be confusing – the contradictory rule that certain behavior is considered unacceptable except in the areas where it is considered acceptable (based on nebulous, fluid rule interpretations and damaged rationalization).

Perhaps someone smarter than I am can enlighten me.

Perhaps.

---

Addendum – Are You Really Surprised? Who Wants to Bell the Cat? – July 23, 2017

When people act surprised about something, it’s always an interesting exercise to see if they are truly surprised or just feigning surprise.

A few people brought the story of Valerie Penton to my attention, a woman who was being sexually harassed by a fellow employee of the Government and who felt that Human Resources within the Government did little if anything to help her. 

She eventually settled a  harassment suit out of court and moved on to other opportunities.  One writer writing about her story noted that the man who harassed her (and used access to DMV records to examine her personal records including her address) was still working there.  I don’t know if that is still the case but most of us get fired immediately for such indiscretion.

Interestingly enough, many of the stories written about Ms. Penton by the local media have been deleted (although some are still available in different web cache locations).

There are at least four articles that remain that don’t require exploring the web cache (at the time I write this):

• Feeling Abandoned (Gander Beacon)
• No Place to Turn (Southern Gazette)
• Bad Behavior in the Civil Service (The Pilot)
• Davis Orders External Review of Harassment Policies (Pink White Green)

The people who came forward telling similar stories after Valerie Penton’s story became public indicated that HR did little if anything for them when their harassment was reported.

Those same people indicated that Ministers were slow to respond to their concerns and needed to be prompted multiple times to take action.

Some people inside and outside of Government said, after reading my post, that they have never heard of any type of harassment inside Government before I posted my piece.

And yet an external review was undertaken to review this very subject after Valerie Penton’s case became public.

So where is the surprise regarding any of this?

Maybe the answer can be found in a personal experience of mine.

Some years ago, I was on the board for an international charity when some significant indiscretions by staff members were discovered.  When I reported them to fellow board members, I found out that they already knew.

When they discovered that I now knew also, they demanded to know what I was going to do about it.

When I asked them why they hadn’t already done something about it, they replied that they didn’t want to jeopardize their other board postings.

Ah yes … courage only when convenient and risk-free.

We need to find a way to encourage those who are victims to know that they have our support in ferreting out miscreants.

And we need to find a way to pressure those with authority to stand up for them.

Many of the latter have been coming to me demanding to know what I am doing about this.

I am asking them in return,“What are you doing about it?”

It reminds me of this story:

A group of mice were arguing in a mouse hole one day about a cat that had been terrorizing them.  With every passing day, the cat would sneak up on one of them without warning and would make off with the unsuspecting victim.  The mice were now tired of this and were arguing about what to do about the villain.

One mouse suggested that if they put a bell on the cat’s neck, then he would no longer be able to creep up on them unawares.

Recognizing the brilliance of the solution, the mice spent considerable time congratulating themselves on how they had solved the problem when their celebration was interrupted by a lone voice in the back of the mouse hole.

“The solution may be brilliant”, observed a wise old mouse, “but who will bell the cat?”

Silence filled the mouse hole and eventually the mice went about their business, realizing that there is a big difference between being full of ideas and having the courage to carry them out.

So … who wants to bell the cat?

Facts – What a Pain in the You-Know-What

Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please. - Mark Twain

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. - John Adams

I took a break from a phenomenally hectic schedule this morning to skim the social media world and once again I was reminded “Why did I do that?”.

In skimming the world of the interesting, the dull, the respectful, the disrespectful, the intellectual and the ignorant, I happened to make an observation along the lines of “For the women who are protesting all the bad things that they know President Elect Trump will do to them, why can’t they put the same energy into all of the areas that we know for certain where women are not being treated respectfully (or live in fear of their Life)?”.

Seems like a fair enough question to me – why don’t we put our effort into EVERYTHING that we are aware of that challenges a woman’s rights to equality and safety?

The blowback from this observation tells me that I was wrong for daring to believe that all women who face difficulty should be defended and for that I apologize.

I was accosted by three people I have known for a long time, citing a lot of interesting “facts” to prove that in fact, I’m completely out of touch.

For example ….

Did you know that Trump is going to revoke all rights for woman in the US, subjecting them to second-class (or lower if that’s possible) citizenship?

Did you know that he will also do the same for all gay people and reverse all the gains the LGBTQ community has made over the years?

Did you ALSO know that he will receive a cash payment of $1 Billion from Vladimir Putin for every Baltic state that America allows Russia to take unchallenged?

I didn’t know these things and for that, I must apologize again.  I appear to be the last person on Earth to know these things.  It is difficult, after all, to live a normal, busy, productive, non-paranoid, non-conspiracy-laden, contributing Life and not be in-the-know regarding everything that everyone might do just because someone says they will do it.  I could digress into a conversation regarding projection from a psychiatrist viewpoint but alas much has been written about this by people much smarter and informed on the subject than I.

When I asked for sources to be cited (I’m a data guy, after all), then the “discussion” turned towards my ignorance of facts and that my demands for data were always inappropriate.

One person who I demanded data of insisted that he couldn’t predict the future.  When I replied that predicting a new version of the Iran Contra deal (cash for Baltic state invasion) was in fact a prediction, the conversation devolved into me being an idiot because I dared to even ask such questions without accepting everyone’s claims at face value.

I always thought great claims demanded great evidence, but again, I’m wrong and for that, I apologize again for believing that I was entitled to an opinion and for not asking for permission to share it with anyone who might disagree or be offended by it.

Data Matters

As a strategy guy, data matters to me.  People in my field use a blend of data, past performance, models and yes, emotions and biases in predicting things as best as we can.

However, no matter how strong our emotions and biases are, if we can’t find data to use, most of us have to wait before we jump up and down in elation or cower in fear just because someone or something doesn’t appear to be in alignment with our desires, interests, values, characters and/or morals.

We also believe in the checks and balances in place in the system to prevent people from going over the top and violating rights and freedoms that we hold sacred.

If someone deviates from that in a way that we consider unacceptable, we believe the system will take care of it.  If the system doesn’t want or choose to address such behavioral aberrations, we have a MUCH larger problem than just the paranoid anticipation of what one man might do.

And so as I reflected on the conversation, it occurs to me that respectful, fact-based, minimally-biased (there is not such thing as nonbiased) conversation doesn’t appear to exist much in society any more.

Why is this?

I believe it is because we don’t teach such skills, assuming that such abilities will naturally evolve in the members of our society.

However, since we are the products of our environment, the likelihood of such abilities evolving without being taught are slim to none. In fact, such people would be seen as the exception and not the norm and we all know how people who stand out make us feel.

If you don’t believe me, try saying something factual (in a loaded space, e.g.politics) on social media and let me know how that experiment goes.

However, if you want to read a great book on evidence-based, minimally-biased dialog, how to create such a dialog and how to defend against someone who abhors such dialog, I highly recommend the book How To Become a Really Good Pain in the Ass - A Critical Thinker's Guide to Asking the Right Questions.

It is brilliant, insightful and witty (and, shudder, fact-based).  If it were embraced by more people, society would be better equipped to solve the problems in the world. 

On a side note, I know that if the author, Dr. DiCarlo, were present during my argument this morning, he would have loved how I handled it and would have praised my responses.

How do I know this?

I just know – you’re an idiot if you don’t agree with me.

Calm down – I’m kidding (someone is already writing a response to me, having been offended by what I just said and unwilling to see how my thoughts unfold).

The Bottom Line

It is ok to not know everything in the world. 

But before we champion something as a truth, we should know that it is in fact true.  If we use truth as a hammer, we should at least know that we can back up our claims with verifiable data (and even then, there are more persuasive techniques than hammering people).

There’s an old “Newfie” joke (I’m from Newfoundland, don’t get offended by the term on my behalf) that goes this way:

How do you keep a Newfoundlander in suspense?

I will tell him tomorrow.

There is another joke that goes the same way.

How do you make the bully, the manipulator and the ignorant angry?

Ask them for data to backup their claims or the hammer that they are using.

Humble, normal, balanced people will acknowledge their mistakes, apologize if necessary, adjust their behavior where appropriate and the world is a little better as a result.

Others fall to the lowest form of dialog and debate, using the personal attack against someone else because they have nothing else to offer in backing up their claims and assertions.

The funny thing is that such people believe that those of us who demand data are a pain in the ass.

The reality is that these people are the real pain in the ass, creating a world where problem elimination, solution finding, collaboration and the like play second fiddle to promoting fear, disrespect, intimidation and the like under the guise of “making the world better”.

Buy Dr. DiCarlo’s book.  You will not be disappointed and will be equipped to make your world and the world of others a better place.

In fact, you’re an idiot if you don’t buy it and absolutely love it.

Just kidding.

Or maybe I’m not.

I guess it depends on what type of dialog you like to participate in – the problem solving kind or the problem creating kind.

Create a great day!  Make a positive difference – it matters.

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Irony: It is ironic that the people who claim to be defending the rights and freedoms of others are often in fact the people who deny that right in others.  It is also ironic that the people who claim to be upholding the highest of moral and ethical standards are in fact guilty of things themselves.  One of my most vocal critics today was investigated for violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, a fact that if revealed would prompt an immediate liable suit (even though it's a fact and not a rumor).

It's an interesting concept that we allow facts to slide when criticizing others but we demand the highest standards of others when defending our own truths. I wonder if these people put as much energy into their careers, families, friends, hobbies, service to others and knowledge acquisition as they do spreading rumor, conjecture and fear.  We must also be careful to avoid being hypocritical as in the case of Meryl Streep who applauded Roman Polanski (who plead guilty to unlawful sex with a minor and fled the country to avoid incarceration) for his Oscar win while denouncing Donald Trump as a man who has no respect for women.

---

Author note: I am NOT a Trump supporter. If I have wound you up convincing you that I am pro-Trump, save your breath before sending me hate mail. However, I prefer to see what he will create and would participate in using the checks and balances in the system to stop him if he screws up. I don't have the time nor the interest to waste my brain wondering what he might do and spread hatred and fear to support such unproductive exercises.

---

PS A few years back before oil prices went into the toilet, myself and a number of other colleagues sent messages to Provincial Governments in Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador cautioning them to adjust budget expectations because oil was about to fall precipitously.  We provided projections of $75 a barrel or lower, provided data and cited sources from within the energy and financial sectors.  We were told to stop fear mongering and in response, we asked for data to refute our warning.  We never heard back from them and when their economies went into the toilet, we were not surprised to hear them announce how surprised they were by the turn of events in the energy sector.

Last week, a Minister in the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador shared some intentions with me and I asked what data supported their intentions.  I didn’t say that their intentions were right or wrong but was curious what data they used.  The reply was that if people like me were as smart as we claimed (I never claimed anything) then there would be no need for the government to have to solve problems in the first place.

I see – I guess I owe the people of Newfoundland and Labrador an apology also since I am now responsible for the economic disaster in progress out there.

I’m now feeling very guilty and inadequate – maybe I should submit to those who appear to know better.

Unfortunately, they shout louder but not more intelligently.

The Bottom Bottom Line

Being caught off guard by a surprise event is forgivable.

Lying or insulting people because data suggests something politically or publicly unsavory and unpopular is about to happen (or not happen) is not forgivable.

That’s the problem with data.

It doesn’t care about how you feel about it and ignoring it doesn’t make it go away.

It only makes the problem worse or creates a problem if we project using emotion or bias in absence of data

And once we know a problem exists (or we create one), WE become the larger problem if we choose not to do our best to address it as strategically, factually, respectfully and collaboratively as we can.

---

Take a Valium

Gwynne Dyer wrote a great article urging everyone to calm down regarding President Elect Trump.  It can be found here - Everybody Take a Valium.

---

Civil Unrest in America: Trump Is Not the Problem - You Are

My core belief is that if you're complaining about something for more than three minutes, two minutes ago you should have done something about it. - Caitlin Moran

Complainers change their complaints, but they never reduce the amount of time spent in complaining. - Mason Cooley

I’ve received a lot of calls, emails, texts and social media messages in the last 24 hours from people citing all the violence “caused by Trump”.  Apparently there is a run on women, gays, Muslims and Latinos, all the fault of Trump, and as a result, people reaching out to me are freaked out that their nation has fallen.  Some even asked me what I was going to do about it, apparently anointing me with powers and influence that I was unaware I had.

If I had known that I had that much influence, I would have been tackling more important issues of the day – like why isn’t the McRib on the McDonald’s menu all the time?

Seriously …. unfortunately, most of the things they are talking about are not true.

One person who called me cited a hate crime against a Muslim woman that was allegedly inspired by Trump.  I asked the person for evidence and it was provided – “I saw the post on Facebook”.  I looked at the post, did a quick Google search and realized it was an old story that has been circulating around for a while, with the name of whose fault it was being the only thing that changed over the last few years.

I pointed this out and that the post was being distributed by a person who has a history of citing unrest with unsubstantiated stores that only they seem to know about and which are clearly filled with a venomous agenda.

Sensing an opportunity for education, I told the person about a story I had just heard in Foreffsakes, Alberta, where a bunch of oil drilling thugs (this person is also anti-oil) had beset upon a gay man and tattooed “Trump” on his forehead.

He demanded that I give him a link so he could share it immediately on Facebook.

I laughed and said, “I lied.  There is no such place as For F Sakes”, placing emphasis on the place name to highlight what I had done.

I explained, “You realize when you share an unsubstantiated story that is distributed by a person known only for sharing hateful things, then you are part of the problem in this world.  Instead of looking for solutions to real problems, you take alleged problems and blindly post them, sharing hate and not light, with no effort to actually diminishing the hate you claim to dislike.”

“By the way”, I continued, “If you are going to focus on agenda-centric hate, there is always someone hurting someone, black versus white, gay versus straight, one religion versus another, etc.  If you are going to make a Life out of merely sharing these stories without getting to root causes and cures, you are going to be a very busy, very bitter person.”

I guess he had hoped that I would give him an opinion that he wanted to hear and not what he needed to hear.

He hung up and horror of horrors, he unfriended me.

I was devastated.

Not really – but in a world where we are the company we keep, my personal network IQ average just went up as a result.

When a person shares hateful, unverified, venomous stories with no intention of checking out authenticity and without an eye towards answering the questions “How can I make this world better?” and “Does blindly sharing this make the world better or worse?”, I wonder one of two things:

1. Does this person have an agenda of their own?
2. Is this person so weak or easily manipulated that they are vulnerable to be used by others who have their own agenda?

Because anyone who can think on their own and who is actually focused on measurable actions that make the world a better place could surely see that such sharings accomplish nothing of the sort.

Meanwhile, people are protesting across the country, screaming “This is not my President” in reference to Trump.

Such delicate wallflowers who have gotten too used to an overly politically correct world where saying “boo” offends someone should realize one thing:

Trump, for better or for worse, was elected fairly in the greatest democratic process on Earth (despite all its shortcomings).  That is something to be championed and not complained about.  As I noted in the past, Americans complaining about their President-elect fail to recognize that the winner is not an aberration of their society but is in fact a product of it.  Given that, who else could win other than someone who represents a natural evolution of their society?  If someone doesn’t like the result of the election, rather than examine the winner, we must examine the system that produced the winner.

Because if we protest too long and too loud about not liking the result and insist on continuing to complain until we get a result we like (however long it takes), we might wake up some day and find that someone has taken away our right to protest or to choose a leader (see my musings on Executive Directive 51).

And then we will have something to scream about.

But by then, we won’t be allowed to use our voice.

The Bottom Line

A lot of things are right in our amazing world.

A lot of things are screwed up.

We make our world better when we cherish, share and magnify the things we do well and we take action against the things that we believe need to be fixed.

Merely pushing “Like” or “Share” on social media (especially when magnifying the problem with no effort towards a solution) doesn’t accomplish anything useful nor does screaming in the streets that “I’m affronted because I didn’t get my way” .

If you are not careful about finding answers and instead, merely promote problems, you will likely create the very things you are afraid of..  You can’t reclaim light and love by merely promoting hatred.

You have a voice – knowing how and when to use it effectively is what makes it a powerful tool for change.

Do you know how to use your voice?

Are you sure?

Because if you don’t know how to use it effectively for positive change, you are not part of the problem.

You are the problem.

Is that how you would like to be remembered?

Is that the best you can do for your family, your country and the world?

What do you intend to do about it?

When do you intend to start?

The world is waiting for you - what are you waiting for?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

PS Rex Murphy highlights in a calm, rational way, how Donald Trump won the election in this YouTube video. A disturbing and accurate reflection on politicians and the people who elect them.

---

Addendum - November 11, 2016

My great friend Keith G. shared this quote from Thic Nhat Hanh and an observation which I found important to share. It reads:

"When you plant lettuce, if it does not grow well, you don’t blame the lettuce. You look for reasons it is not doing well. It may need fertilizer, or more water, or less sun. You never blame the lettuce. Yet if we have problems with our friends or family, we blame the other person. But if we know how to take care of them, they will grow well, like the lettuce. Blaming has no positive effect at all, nor does trying to persuade using reason and argument. That is my experience. No blame, no reasoning, no argument, just understanding. If you understand, and you show that you understand, you can love, and the situation will change."

Keith then noted: Hate, blaming, violence will never lead to anything positive. We need to make the effort to understand each other. We’re all rational human beings and we all have our reasons. The more we understand, the more we can progress. We’re all in this together.

It is ironic (and sad) that on this day, November 11, 2016, when we pause to thank people (military and first responders) who sacrifice every day for us, that the US struggles with accepting the election of Donald Trump. Those who serve, whether in military or as a first responder, do things we wouldn't have the courage to do for people whom they will never meet so that we have the freedom to do as we please. While we must be careful to not take this freedom for granted nor the gift and the sacrifice of those who serve, people protest, not because a travesty of justice has been served, but because they didn't get their way.

In their effort to promote their fear of what could happen under a Trump government, they create the very thing they fear with protests that have turned violent, with flag burning and the like. It's as if to say, "If Trump wins, he will burn down the country - if he wins and the country doesn't burn down, then we will burn it down instead".

Where is the sense in that?

Where is the gratitude for those who have served and died, that we can be mature enough to collaborate towards a better world instead of being spoiled people who whine because we can't have our own way?

It doesn't take much courage to complain about not getting our own way and to lash out and hurt others under the guise of creating something better.

Where has the courage to do the right thing fled?

Thank a veteran today for his or her courage - these people set an example that, while we should be following, we seem to have lost sight of.

Let's work harder to rediscover the courage they showed (and show) - Lest We Forget.

---

Addendum 2 - Where Are the "Leaders"? - November 12, 2016

As the demonstrations grow larger and more violent, where are people like Hillary Clinton and Democrat Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, people who should be reaching out and asking for a proper sense of decorum during the transition of power?

Harry Reid is stirring up emotions with inflammatory remarks like this.

And Hillary Clinton is nowhere to be seen.

Neither are exhibiting the actions of a leader. Watching this blow up serves their need, even if at the expense of the people.

And so why do the minions follow them, blindly sharing unsubstantiated stories of hate to add fuel to the fire?

It doesn't matter to those in power - hatred is one of the most useful tools of manipulation and they are exploiting it to the fullest.

It's too bad that those who are manipulated aren't intelligent enough to see it.

The possibility of Executive Directive 51 looms closer.

If it gets invoked, it won't matter what your opinion is - you won't be allowed to share it.

For those who crave power, it won't matter either - they will have the power they seek.

Now that's something to collaborate together to prevent.

Newfoundland Politicians–A New Definition of Honorable Member

"Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful." - Samuel Johnson

"In looking for people to hire, you look for three qualities: integrity, intelligence, and energy. And if they don't have the first, the other two will kill you." - Warren Buffet

"There are seven things that will destroy us: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Religion without sacrifice; Politics without principle; Science without humanity; Business without ethics." - Mahatma Gandhi

I just finished reading what could be the next instalment of Fifty Shades of Gray.  It’s titillating if you are into that kind of stuff, filled with intrigue, covert hook-ups, erotic rendezvous and tinges of scandal.

If you are interested in a copy of this interesting read, don’t bother going to Amazon or Indigo to find it.

Why?

Because it’s the latest dirt on a group of Newfoundland and Labrador politicians who forget that with power comes responsibility but with power also comes people seeking to undermine them.

And with that, secrets held by some become coveted knowledge for those who seek to use that knowledge at just the right moment – whether to “leverage” someone into doing something for them or having someone thrown out if they no longer serve a purpose.

And while rumors circulate about the promiscuous, salacious behavior of married politicians with people inside and outside of caucus, I can’t help but wonder if these are the type of leaders that Newfoundland and Labrador needs to dig the Province out of the financial hole that they find themselves in.

Perhaps I’m too conservative in my belief structure but in my world, married politicians who need to satisfy their cravings should be aware that how they satisfy their cravings provides insight into their sense of values, ethics and character.

And while I don’t expect perfection from such people (who of us are perfect), somewhere in my flawed brain, I want to believe that these people are doing their best to satisfy the needs of the people instead of the needs of their loins.

On the flip side, if we out these people, we hurt innocent people, including husbands, wives and children, who likely aren’t privy to what is happening away from home but stand to be embarrassed, humiliated or impacted financially when dalliances become public.  I think some miscreants count on this, using the “you wouldn’t want my family to be hurt, would you?” defense.

So if we turn a blind eye to it. we submit ourselves to be led by people who have demonstrated themselves to be of questionable ethics, morals and character, causing us to wonder if there are any limits that such flaws will produce, limits that will hurt any number of innocent people in one or more ways.

And if we take action, other innocent people will get hurt.

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

And now as some Ministers ally themselves against the Premier with an intent to undermine or overthrow him so that they can replace him, other Ministers find an alternate definition for the term “honorable member” and people forget that what happens at the Liberal AGM doesn’t stay at the AGM, I wonder if once again, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have gotten the shaft (no pun intended).

I’m a big believer in “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”. 

However, many people who sin significantly count on this to avoid being judged or they gather enough dirt on everyone else to in order create a form of detente, threatening mutual assured destruction should anyone blow their cover (no pun intended).

I think it is fair and reasonable to hold Government leaders to a higher standard of ethics, morals, values and character, given their power, influence and responsibility.

What do you think?

The Bottom Line

Eight to fifteen MHAs in the Newfoundland and Labrador government are considering crossing the floor to the PC side.

I think it won’t make a damned bit of difference if we can’t get better moral, ethical, intelligent, people-serving, character-based leadership inside the House.

What do you think?

I wonder what the great people of Newfoundland and Labrador are willing to accept from the people who were elected to serve them instead of their own hungers and desires.

I wonder what the people are willing to do about it besides complain in social media and coffee shops.

Because it takes action to fix things.

Everything else is just entertainment – maybe we could call this 49 Shades of Gray to honor the year the Province was welcomed into Confederation.  It could raise the town of Dildo to new opportunities of promotion. Alas, I digress.

I think the Province deserves better.

I wonder what the People think.

In service and servantbood,

Harry

PS I asked someone what they thought of my thoughts and they told me that “I nailed it” – no pun intended. 

Let us not forget that there are good, character-based, people-serving politicians in the House. However, their efforts are undermined and their attention distracted by the actions of others, producing a net result that is less than optimal.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Government is leaderless and on fire from within with people like Finance Minister Cathy Bennett (with some assistance) attempting to exert control over a weak Premier in a vain attempt to secure greater control over the caucus and possibly secure the Premier's Office while other MHAs run willy nilly following their own passions. Unfortunately, it is the people of the Province who are getting burned .... again.

---

Addendum - What Difference Does it Make? - August 29, 2016

I've been contacted by a couple of MHAs who want to know what difference it makes if MHAs want to have a little "fun on the side". I tried to explain that blatant examples of disrespect, dishonesty and the like are a poor reflection of someone's character, morals and values and they disagreed entirely with me. I also explained that a dalliance could compromise the MHA themselves or privileged information that they have access to and once again I was told I was wrong. All of them asked what names I had. I don't know if they wanted to see if they were on "the list" (the answer is yes) or if they wanted dirt on fellow caucus members. Such individuals are either ignorant, incompetent or looking for ways to justify their own behavior. None of these attributes serve the people of the Province well.

The one bright spot? The sitting MHAs (regardless of Party color) with active, credit-card confirmed Ashley Madison accounts aren't expensing their membership to the people.

Good people cannot govern when they are distracted or harassed by incompetent, ignorant or greedy people. If the NL Government Caucus doesn't clean house soon with solid, transparent leadership, it won't matter for the Premier or the Liberal Party as they eat themselves alive.

---

Ric McIver, Dwight Ball and the Leadership Vacuum

Where there is no vision, there is no hope - George Washington Carver

Author note: On May 4th, Earl's restaurant reversed their decision regarding Canadian beef. See bottom of post for details.

As a long-time Wall St. strategy advisor, I am fascinated, excited, intrigued, worried, disappointed and terrified when I take the time to observe the behaviors of corporate and government leaders.

Since the quality of our Life results is entirely dependent on the quality of the leaders we select (or who are selected on our behalf), my personal belief is that we need to highlight and champion great leaders who are guiding our world towards a better future.

By the same token, I believe that we need to call out poor leadership behavior with the hope that either the behavior will be corrected or that we will have the courage to replace the defective leader.

I am reminded of the importance of the latter as I observed the behavior of certain politicians in Canada this week.

Ric McIver, leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta, stepped into a potential minefield this week when he took umbrage over the fact that Earl’s Restaurants, a Canadian-based restaurant chain, has decided to replace its current beef suppliers with ones that have the Certified Humane designation.  Their explanation can be found here.

In the same typical, knee-jerk reaction that he has exhibited in previous events, Mr. McIver had this observation on Twitter (click on the image for a larger version of it).

Personally, I didn’t think that a political leader was permitted to take a stand against a corporation in Canada that is making choices based on the free will that we enjoy in a democratic country that embraces capitalism and free-enterprise.

After all, Earl’s is not breaking any laws.  They are observing and participating in a worldwide trend to find better sources (more humane, more sustainable, etc.) for their products.

Mr. McIver, oblivious to this worldwide trend and the right for corporations to make decisions based on their corporate values, has decided that it is better to promote a boycott of this restaurant.

Unfortunately, if he were successful in punishing Earl’s to the point where they went out of business (unlikely, of course), there would be hundreds of Albertans who would be thrown out of work as a result, defying the rules of capitalism while potentially condemning Albertans instead of protecting them.

Does Mr. McIver represent all Albertans or just those that are wealthier, protecting beef ranchers over the far-less paid staff at Earl’s?

Is he embracing this event as another opportunistic political moment to encourage rhetoric-laden, fact-less, venomous dialog with the intention of harvesting points from the bandwagon of citizen unrest?

Or is he not strategically or tactically astute enough to do either and doesn’t realize that his knee-jerk reactions reveal a lack of leadership capability?

Only he knows.

Meanwhile, while Mr. McIver had much to say about Earl’s choices this week, PC Party Director-Elect Craig Chandler went on a rant about Earl’s as well, expressing opinions on various social media platforms that devolved into him accusing Earl’s of supporting halal practices and since supporters of halal practices are all terrorists (according to Chandler), then Earl’s is now a supporter of terrorism.

[Note: Mr. Chandler announced his resignation after this post was written as noted here.  Even though Mr. Chandler was forced to step down by the Party, Mr. McIver can dodge the difficulty of standing on principle by allowing Mr. Chandler to step down instead of publicly firing him, thus demonstrating another weakness in leadership as he never publicly condemned Chandler’s actions.  It is interesting that Mr. Chandler’s resignation also did not include any apology to Earl’s or to Muslims. This quote from him is also humorous - "My controversial past seems to be a distraction and everything I say seems to be misconstrued". Calling followers of halal practices "terrorists" doesn't leave room for misinterpretation.]

Two of Mr. Chandler’s observations are here (click on the images for larger versions):

Despite this ridiculous and outrageous insult against the Earl’s organization and against Muslims in Alberta, Mr. McIver was publicly silent as a member of his organization displayed a heightened level of cultural (and potentially legal) ignorance.

I also worry when PC Party insiders speak in hushed tones about how they want to see Mr. McIver removed for such acts of leadership ignorance and yet support him publicly, towing the Party line for the sake of “unity”.

As long as they do that, he will continue to do what he does best, however that is defined.

And the people influenced by such poor leadership will continue to suffer.

Meanwhile in Newfoundland and Labrador, Premier Ball has decided to balance the books of the the heavily-burdened, financially-strapped Province on the backs of the people who suffer the most.

For example, the Province that is dead-last in Canada in terms of literacy rates has learned that there will be a new 10% tax on books and that half of the libraries in the Province will be permanently closed. This cartoon says it all (click on the image to see a larger version - I am trying to find the owner of this powerful cartoon to give them full credit):

Congratulations, Mr. Premier.  Such moves will be very helpful in helping the people of the Province find a way to better themselves.  Such a strategy will also be a useful component to building an allegedly brighter future (which you haven’t been able to define as of yet).

And just as PC Party insiders tell me and others privately about how their leadership has to change while saying the exact opposite in public, Liberal Ministers in the Newfoundland and Labrador Government text myself and others complaining about Dwight Ball’s leadership, Finance Minister Cathy Bennett’s style and abilities, etc.

And yet, they also fall in line when it comes to making a public stand, blindly following their leaders in order to serve their personal needs or in demonstration of their inability to stand on their values …. or their lack of courage to do so.

Meanwhile in BC as Premier Christy Clark is condemned for taking a $50,000 stipend from her political party in addition to her Premier’s salary ….

…. enough already.

You get the point.

Our world, whether it be at the community, city, provincial or national level, becomes a better place when we champion and support great leaders while simultaneously calling out leaders who are unqualified for their role or ignorant of the people they claim to serve.

When we don’t take actions to correct abhorrent leadership behavior, we get the exact type of leadership we deserve …. and the abhorrent results that they produce.

Ironically, there were riots in California this morning as hundreds of people who oppose Donald Trump for his alleged ignorance, bully-like behavior, lack of acceptance of others, etc. demonstrated that words and actions don’t always easily come together as they overturned police cars, set fires and committed other egregious acts in protest of Mr. Trump’s poor behavior.

So while saying nothing doesn’t serve anything or anyone, burning everything to the ground as a substitute for dialog around solutions doesn’t help much either.

Sometimes calling out ignorance reveals it in other places that might surprise or disappoint us.

The Bottom Line

The world is rapidly heading towards an “interesting” climactic point.

This climatic point will either be one of phenomenal beauty and potential or terrifying hopelessness and disaster.

The world we are creating depends on the leaders we select and the manner in which we participate in the selection (and replacement, if necessary) of those leaders.

We need leaders now who understand the impact of their choices and intentions and people who can rationally discuss and debate issues with those leaders, using knowledge and dialog instead of rhetoric, intimidation, violence … and yes, stupidity.

Are you either one of these because if you are, the world needs your talents now.

The world is waiting for such people.

What are you waiting for?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Addendum - Earl's Changes Its Mind - May 4th, 2016

Earl's announced this morning that it has changed its position on Alberta / Canadian beef and will work with producers to find more sources within Canada. The news item that they tweeted can be found here.

It is an intriguing reversal. Were they intimidated into making a move they don't agree with regarding the reversal, did they make an honest mistake and need to correct it or do they see this as a marketing opportunity to look like a hero? Only Earl's knows the answer to this question.

It prompted the resignation of a PC Party Director-elect and generated a lot of hatred on social media, demonstrating that an action taken, even reversed, leaves a long-standing impact.

It should be a warning for anyone making difficult decisions to do so carefully and to fully understand the effect before pulling the trigger on execution.

It also sends a warning to business - does free enterprise exist anymore in the age of social media?

Newfoundland Government: Defying My Rituals of Optimism

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. - John Adams

To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step to knowledge. - Benjamin Disraeli

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley

In the difficult world of complex, high-end strategy where I live professionally, I have developed a daily ritual with three key components that help my mind to stay focused, structured and optimistic.

My day begins with Quiet Hour, an hour of reflection, reading and learning (I have referenced this process many times in my blog as noted in these search results).  It takes place before I look at emails, SMS, news or any other distractions and I use it to frame my day in a positive manner.  After Quiet Hour, I scan the news and social media for items of interest.  My brain is absorbing but not yet analyzing.

The second ritual in my day is my morning shave.  While many guys are in a hurry to scrape their face with a lousy disposable cartridge and a can of propane and chemicals, I take my time.  My shaving brush soaks in distilled water as I shower.  After showering, I methodically lather my Castle Forbes shaving cream in my shaving mug, perform a four-pass shave with a beautiful razor like a Merkur Futur (or other one depending on my mood), rub my alum block over my face and then finish up with a luxurious balm such as the Castle Forbes 1445.

For those who like a 5-minute shave, this 30-minute ritual would seem like madness to them.  To a cerebral person, it is gold.  My brain is now in planning mode, prioritizing work for the day, mentally writing emails (or blogs), rehearsing presentations, playing out phone calls and such. 

Too many people are in a hurry to just execute randomly, haphazardly, reactively or without thought.

That is not my way.

And so as I executed my rituals this morning, my thoughts were on the Newfoundland and Labrador government, its recent budget and the great people the Government claims to serve.  A lot of people have been reaching out to me publicly and privately to get my thoughts on the budget but as in most things, I think about things in my own time and not based on someone else’s schedules and demands.

I smiled with bemusement as the dangerously sharp, double-edged blade slid across my throat and the Newfoundland government came to mind at the same moment. 

“Coincidence?”, I wondered.

The province of my youth has always been a great conundrum for me.

It is a place of unrivalled natural beauty.

Its 500+ year-old culture is rich, broad and deep.

Its people are rugged, hard-working, resilient, intelligent people who are known the world over for their work ethic and their humor (and for older generations, their wonderful accent).

And yet, the budget of 2016 demonstrates that another disaster is unfolding for this storied place.

Why is this?

Should this become the new slogan for the Province?

Hope: May not be warranted at this point.

Where Does One Begin?

I could ask why the great people of the Province spend more time complaining on call-in shows and in the local coffee shops than becoming informed voters about the complexities of government operations and the ignorance, incompetence and greed of many (not all) of those who run for office.

I could ask whether the merchant mentality that kept most of the Province financially oppressed for hundreds of years, rewarding the upper echelons of society, was still alive and well.  Observe who is still doing well in the Province – the answer will become obvious.

I could ask why projects like Muskrat Falls can go on for so long with budgets and timelines out of control while at the same time, the details of the project are withheld from the people by the Government who claims to work for the people and answer to them.  I’m not suggesting that the Muskrat Falls project is wrong – I’m saying that the execution of it is miserably abhorrent and thus demands transparent, intelligent attention immediately.  Heads should roll until competent people are “driving the bus” for the benefit of the people.

I could ask why analysis of the afore-mentioned project by a well known firm could cost $1.6 million dollars and yet produce a 20-page (15 pages if one removes the cover page and such) document that actually says nothing – Life on the government tit is profitable for those of you who haven’t experienced its incredible benefits.

I could ask why we allow people who are “as stunned as me arse” (to use a Newfoundland expression) to become ministers when the law allows the Government to select brilliant, competent, proven, unelected people to fill these ministerial slots.  Unfortunately, Newfoundlanders often don’t realize the benefits of this process and become suspicious when it is tried, believing that unelected officials are trying to rob them.

I could ask why many people who come into office promising unlimited abundance to the people leave the province worse off but yet, find their own world has just exploded in unlimited economic potential because of their time in government.  If one questions this too loudly, those same people intimidate “naysayers” using SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) suits to silence their critics.

I could ask why the cost of Newfoundland’s public sector is so high for the 500,000+ people who live there, with benefits and pensions that the people of the Province couldn’t dare dream of.  Unfortunately, merely asking such questions raises the ire of the loud and ignorant who shout down the people who dare to ask for dialog around solutions that make more financial sense for the Province.

I could laugh at the MHAs who reach out to me to criticize others while we both know that I have enough dirt on them to sink them.  Ego often blinds us to our own weaknesses and vulnerabilities.

I could ask why the Government wilfully lies to the people, ignoring the data of various industries when they wrap their financial viability around a few volatile industries such as oil and gas, calculate forecasts based on data-less projections (despite the advice of many of us in those industries) and then act surprised when things don’t work out.  Candy-coated denial is easier to sell than painful, transparent reality.

I could ask why governments have been predicting for decades that paradise is literally around the corner but yet it never materializes except for many of the government officials who move on to discover paradise in their post-government lives.

I could ask why voters always complain about these things, why they accept the same stale, recycled promises from every politician, why they fall for the same lines during every election and yet still lament when the same abuses are repeated by every generation of politicians. Voters believe that salvation is always just an election away and yet they are continuously and constantly disappointed when they fail to learn from their own history.

I could ask these and many more questions.

But my thinking ritual of the morning is only 30 minutes long and I ran out of time.

It reminds me of the joke where a doctor tells his patient that he has good news and bad news.  The patient asks for the bad news first and the doctor replies that the patient has only 6 months to live.  The patient reacts with alarm and demands to know what the good news could be if that is the bad news.  The doctor replies, “Did you see that cute receptionist outside my office?  I’m having sex with her.”

Both the Province and the Doctor have something in common – there is little good news for the people that they claim to be serving but there is plenty of personal good news.

Sadly, there is nothing funny for the people that either are serving.

The question is:

Is the Life of the Province about to be cut short by a terminal disease or is there some hope left that a cure remains for a better future?

The Bottom Line

I am an eternal optimist but I am also an informed, realistic one.

To the people who say that to point out issues or to question things is pessimistic, I point out to those people that to deny reality is ignorant.  If one is to fix the things that are broken in order to move towards a better future, a realistic outlook of where one stands is essential, otherwise the actions taken will be inappropriate or insufficient. Many misinformed, uninformed, ignorant people who point the finger of pessimism at others are in fact doing so to prevent a closer examination of the issues that are present (many of which are the responsibility of the people who accuse others of being pessimists).

Optimism is an essential belief structure but it has to be based on data, knowledge, wisdom and reality.  It must be based on solid strategic and tactical intentions that are wielded by self-less, transparent, competent, intelligent officials who serve the people.

Sadly, my strong optimism is fading for the Province that I proudly call home and believe me, it takes a lot to break my optimism for any given situation.

For all of the people I have spoken to inside Government over the years, almost none of them can use data to prove to me that they know how to fix the woes that the Province struggles with financially.  They won’t share all of the data but instead, use feel-good phrases to demonstrate that they “just know things will get better” and that they “know what they are doing”.  Such tactics are not only great at deflecting people away from seeing the problems and the inability for the problem owners to solve the problems but they are also very useful to get elected.

When I ask for proof to back their feel-good phrases (and to circumvent their deflection tactics), I am accused of being a pessimist.

To those people, I apologize.

I am a transparent realist who serves the people around me.

Many of the elected officials in government are not and that’s why things are not getting fixed and will never be fixed until either the people who run the government change or a Great Correction forces a change.

The former is much less painful.

The latter is much more painful but sadly is also much more likely.

If you disagree with me, spare me your opinions.

Send me your data and prove your point respectfully and intelligently.

Then we will have something to chew on to help the Province move towards a better future that benefits all the people and not just the people who claim to serve them.

In the meantime, we can all watch the Government consistently miss its over-opportunistic, idealistic forecasts designed to placate and not to inform, we can watch its public sector and public spending costs rise continuously and unnecessarily and we can watch the Government attempt to draw blood out of a stone as it raises taxes in an economy where the unemployment rate is more than 14% and is already overtaxed. Raising taxes for the overtaxed is short-sighted, not strategically or tactically astute and lacks ingenuity or creativity but it seems easy enough to do for those who can't think of anything better.

The upside is that the future does in fact have some good news that is constantly proven to be true. Unfortunately, it is for the few who govern and not the many who are governed.

As for my rituals, I mentioned 2 of my 3 daily rituals.

My third ritual is to close my day with quiet Scripture reading and with prayers for those who struggle. While some cultures around the world prefer human sacrifice as being more appropriate and effective than prayer in situations such as this, it is fortunate for some that our culture tends to look down on such ways as being too barbaric.

I’d pray for Newfoundland and Labrador, but as they say, the Lord helps those who help themselves.

Are the great people of that great Province willing and able to demand better from those who claim to serve them?

I’m not sure.

What do you think?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Addendum - Another Opinion

Russell Wangersky wrote a powerful article about the budget for The Telegram, a newspaper in St. John's, Newfoundland. It speaks volumes, sadly.

The article is here - Get Out If You Can.

For fun, take a listen to then-Premier Danny Williams slam "pessimists" as he describes the paradise that will exist in 20 years.

---

Addendum 2 - A Liberal Insider Speaks ... and Resigns - April 20, 2016

Barry Wheeler, former President of the Humber-Bay of Islands Liberal Association in Newfoundland, made this observation yesterday:

Why did we have to increase spending by 12 per cent when it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that we've had a spending problem — and we've had a spending problem for the last 10 years?

He is 100% right but sadly, his comments will fall on deaf ears. The resignation of a passionate, insightful, committed member of the Liberal Party should send shock waves through the Party in the Province but as with many warnings, his warning will also go unnoticed and unheeded.

More news on his observations and resignation can be found here - Humber-Bay of Islands Liberal association president quits in disgust over budget (CBC).

---

Addendum 3 - Final Thoughts - April 28, 2016

As details of the budget become public, including closing half the libraries in the Province, adding a 10% tax to books, reducing some classrooms to multi-grade classrooms with no guidance or instruction to teachers as to the best way to accomplish it, etc., I have asked a number of MHAs to explain how a budget that negatively targets knowledge and education is supposed to be an investment in the future.

The few who have responded have demonstrated that they are not worthy of governing and in fact, have little understanding of practically anything.

How can the great people of such a great Province have any hope at all with such leadership (or demonstrated lack thereof)?

---