Alberta–Where Women’s Safety Doesn’t Matter

An abuser can seem emotionally needy. You can get caught in a trap of catering to him, trying to fill a bottomless pit. But he’s not so much needy as entitled, so no matter how much you give him, it will never be enough. He will just keep coming up with more demands because he believes his needs are your responsibility, until you feel drained down to nothing. - Lundy Bancroft

The scars from mental cruelty can be as deep and long-lasting as wounds from punches or slaps but are often not as obvious. - Lundy Bancroft

The purpose of human life is to serve, and to show compassion and the will to help others. - Albert Schweitzer

I have a question that perhaps you can help me with.

This is not a #1206 fiction blog that many of you have come to enjoy.

This is not, as my son describes, one of my parables.

This is not one of my skewers of some misguided politician.

And sorry to disappoint you, but I have no opinion on Brexit.

Here is my question.

A woman in small town Alberta has been chased from her property by an abusive son who was the son of a physically and emotionally abusive father.  The father died when the child was young and the child grew up to be an abusive son, coercing and manipulating his mother emotionally and financially.

He threatened her physically and drained her of tens of thousands of dollars in cash over a period of more than a decade.  She has been informed by the RCMP that she cannot return to her property until a way is found to remove him from the property (something that is caught up in “due process”), even though this property is her primary residence and her sole source of income.

An Emergency Protection Order (EPO) was requested but denied.  According to due process, a person with a documented anger issue, a drug abuse issue and firearms cannot be considered a threat to a person's health if they merely threaten the person's Life - they must take action first and then the EPO can be issued (hopefully with the idea that the person hasn't been killed already).  A judge said this week that due process in such cases is ridiculous and that she should just claim her property with him being automatically removed but due process continues to grind anyway.

He has four unsecured firearms on the premises and has been identified by a number of legal and enforcement officials as having a serious but as yet unidentified mental health condition.

He has admitted to the RCMP of addiction to a number of substances with cocaine being his preferred drug of choice.  People have called him and left him messages looking for fentanyl.

The property that his mother has been chased from has outbuildings which he has added new locks to to keep prying eyes from seeing “something”.  These outbuildings are used to generate an income for the owner but that income is in jeopardy since the equipment needed to generate that income is locked inside buildings that the owner cannot access because she is not allowed to return to the property.

He lives in a farmhouse that, once beautiful, has now been documented by RCMP as filled with garbage, feces and cocaine residue and is basically uninhabitable.  He stole a property marker from someone else's residence and put it on the property that he is located on with the hopes of hiding his address from police.

He has expressed on Facebook that he hates Life, Life (and the world) make him angry and that he has dodged being arrested in the past.

His self-esteem is at zero, adding a Facebook "Like" when people call him a "c**ksniffer", "homosexual douche bag", "loser", etc., making him a candidate for displaced aggression as he absorbs abuse from people and then redirects the negative energy he has absorbed to other people.

And yet despite all of this, after a court-mandated 24-hour health assessment was executed by RCMP yesterday, he was released within an hour.

Here are some notable quotes from one of the doctors who performed the assessment when interrogated by the mother.

---

Psychiatrist: I don’t know why he is here.  Why is he here?  We have no reason to keep him.

Mother: You are releasing him? Did you read the affidavit that caused him to be taken in (the affidavit describes 8 pages of propensity towards violent behavior mixed with possible drug addiction and possession of firearms)?

Psychiatrist response: I read some document about a messy house or something.

My observation: Attention to detail makes all the difference.

---

Mother: He has threatened me repeatedly, including making references to bullets and telling me that if I return to my own house, that something bad will happen to me.  He has posted videos on Facebook showing women being beaten viciously by men and he thinks it is funny.  He has fits of uncontrollable anger where he throws things at people.  These and other things are in the affidavit.

Psychiatrist response: People get angry, you know.

My observation: There is a significant difference between anger, which is not uncommon, and threatening to hurt someone, potentially by shooting them.

---

Mother: In addition to the threats he has issued, he was, in his own words and by my observation, abused by his father.  He has also told people that he hates the world and that the world makes him angry.

Psychiatrist response: That is not relevant

My observation: According to psychiatry texts, there is an established correlation between being abused and growing up with mental health issues as a result (including becoming an abuser).

---

Mother: He lives in squalor, living in his own garbage and feces.

Psychiatrist response: Maybe the toilets are not working.

My observation: The toilets work fine. It is not normal to live in one's own feces and garbage.

---

Mother: The court ordered a 24-hour health assessment, which means he can be held against his will while a battery of tests are conducted to determine what the concerns are.

Psychiatrist response: I can’t hold him against his will.  If he has issues, we will provide him with material so that he can explore programs available to him.

My observation: People who have specific illness often do not have sufficient capability to understand that they need help or how to obtain it even if they decide they need it.

---

Psychiatrist response: Does he hear voices or does he talk to God?

Mother: I don't know.  How would I know that?  Why don't you ask him that?

Psychiatrist response: Well, if he doesn't do those things, there is likely nothing wrong with him.

My observation: People of faith talk to God on a regular basis - it is called prayer and last I checked, wasn't considered a reason to be considered mentally ill.

---

Mother: What kind of questions did you ask him?

Psychiatrist response: I can't tell you - client privilege.

My observation: I wonder if the standard assessment tests were ordered and if so, how they could have been conducted so quickly (in less than an hour).  While the answers might be privileged, it is likely the case that the questions shouldn't be (if any were asked at all).

---

Two hours later when the RCMP found out he had been released, the constable on duty called the hospital and, on the record, tore a couple of layers off the doctor.  He also told the mother that he had half a mind to drag the doctor to the house to show the doctor what condition the individual was living in.

And now a person with an identified serious anger issue, hatred against women issues, drug addiction and firearm’s possession is back on the streets.  Hopefully he is not thinking revenge after the embarrassment of being brought to a hospital by police.

Here is my question that I am hoping you can help me with.

Why?

If this individual had attacked a member of the LGBTQ community, a Syrian refugee or an animal, there would be hell to pay (and rightfully so).

And yet, the individual’s mother has to wonder, as the system grinds its way through wondering how to deal with this, if she is even safe.  She is not permitted to return to her primary residence and her sole source of income is being threatened.

It sounds and looks like she is living in a third-world country where women's rights to safety don't matter.

The Bottom Line

The last time I checked, Alberta was supposed to be a modern province in the modern nation of Canada.

But if the system is going to allow women to be treated like this, protecting a predator while victims are left to scramble for their own safety and sanity, then it appears that we have more respect for the cattle that roam the prairies than the women who live there.

Maybe there’s the answer.

While we’re branding the cattle, we can just brand the women also and tell them to forget that they have rights or that there is never a sense of urgency when their emotional, physical or financial security is at stake.

I think we MUST do much better.

While the system pontificates over due process and the rights of everyone, this woman and women like her fear for their safety.  At the same time, people who need help as is the case with the person with the issue are left to languish.  Providing them with self-service offerings to help themselves, when they are not in a position to make lucid decisions that would enable them to avail of such services, leaves people without the help they need.  Hopefully, neither person becomes a statistic as due process takes whatever time it needs or wants.

I don’t think this is right or acceptable.

What do you think?

What can we do about it?

What are we waiting for?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Addendum

A police officer observed that even when they dropped off people who attempted suicide by slitting their wrists, they are often released within two hours.  Does this honor people who are in trouble?  I don't think so.

What do you think?

---

Addendum - Irony - June 30, 2016

In a twist of irony (and somewhat of an insult), the mother described in this story had a message left on HER voicemail today.  It was the Canadian Mental Health Association - they wanted to know how the son was doing.  Given the complexities that the mother and son are embroiled in within the legal system, given how the mother is the one who had her physical safety threatened and given the son's involvement with drugs (possibly dealing as well as using) it is an odd call that likely will not generate a reply.

---

Addendum - Warning - July 3, 2016

51908296 92947295 96788695 86968897 36877495 93868898 96828391 52948087 38847975 79779891 76868792 35759690 87937290 31839296 97929395 46979196 76909383 33899095 94728296 39928889 81689197 75608797 80559494 31839296 33733398 37978396 34956990 92918372 31839296

---

The Sucking Sound of the Leadership Vacuum in Alberta

A leader is one who knows the way, goes the way, and shows the way. - John C. Maxwell

The quality of a leader is reflected in the standards they set for themselves. - Ray Kroc

I was amused and disappointed the other day when it was announced that 1700 private jets were being used by attendees of the upcoming Davos conference on global warming and income inequality.  The disconnect between the verbally stated intentions of the attendees and their demonstrated actions sharply demonstrates the old adage:

Let my actions speak so loudly that you can’t hear what I am saying.

When one wonders why such an obvious disconnect can take place for a conference so important, it is important to realize that such leadership (or demonstrated lack thereof) starts on a much smaller, local scale.

The roots of leadership capability start at home and with that I turned to examples of local leadership in the Province of Alberta to observe leadership in its incubation stages.

After all, the leaders on the local scene eventually become our global leaders.

After taking a quick scan of the leaders on a local scale, it is easy to see why leadership by example is missing in Davos.

It’s because it doesn’t exist at the local levels either.

Last week, Mayor Nenshi of Calgary allowed Councillor Druh Farrell to make unsubstantiated, unverified claims of alleged wild, alcohol-fuelled parties by councillors at City events.

A real leader recognizes that unsubstantiated claims should never be made in public.  A real leader also doesn’t allow his or her colleagues to be skewered publicly with such unsubstantiated claims.  There is a time and a place for such claims and action is taken using facts that allow corrective action to be taken if necessary.  If unsubstantiated, such allegations never see the light of day.

The Mayor not only allowed Councillor Farrell to make such vague, unsubstantiated claims, he exacerbated the situation with his own references to councillors getting “blotto” at community events, to inappropriate drinking by councillors in their offices and to the use of illegal drugs by councillors.

By his own admission, he has no evidence or proof.  He claims he was merely reporting what he had heard and in doing so, he as the leader of City Council invited and encouraged an unfair, unprofessional, public smearing of many hard working councillors who sacrifice everything in order to serve their community.

In other words, he threw his colleagues under the bus without facts of any kind and he doesn’t seem to care.

It appears that he enjoys the merits of being the Mayor when it is convenient and he often plays the card of “I’m just one vote of many on council” but for some reason, he is unable or unwilling to assume the position of the leader of the City Council when the presence of such a leader is critical.

It is a sad reality that politicians are rarely real leaders and this smear probably serves a political need of his.  Well ….. that is giving him the benefit of the doubt and is assuming that he is an astute strategist.  It is a known strategy for those who don’t know what they are doing to encourage disagreement amongst their colleagues to keep them distracted from recognizing the lack of leadership at the top.

Then again, maybe he or his advisors just don’t know any better. 

In the real world, such allegations without merit or proof get a “leader” fired or potentially sued for slander.

But the world of politics is not the real world and therefore, such unprofessional, unethical behavior is rarely punished.

A real leader also knows how to apologize and regain control of matters when things get out of control under their watch.  At the time this was written, no such apology is forthcoming from the Mayor.  He has informed some councillors that as far as he is concerned, this is a dead issue but if they wish, they can call a point of privilege to pursue.

So instead of apologizing to the people who have been unfairly smeared and instead of killing the issue once and for all in the absence of facts, he is letting allegations stand while more fuel is poured on the fire.

If he put as much effort into leading as he does with meaningless, fluffy tweets, maybe Council could spend more time addressing important concerns such as the economic downturn that is coming due to collapsing oil prices. 

Tens of thousands of layoffs are expected. 

I wonder what his strategy is for this.

Maybe it will fall out during one of the alleged wild, alcohol-fueled parties.

And speaking of apologies …

Danielle Smith, the former Wildrose Party leader and now opportunistic PC Party ladder-climber, apologized on her Facebook page about the decision she made in leaving the Wildrose Party of Alberta. Intriguingly enough, she apologized for angering people with her decision but then went on to criticize the people who allegedly forced her hand.

It sounded like “I’m really sorry but it was someone else’s fault anyway so …..”.  Sounds like an authentic apology to me.  It is generally accepted that the “take action and beg for forgiveness later” apology is never authentic since the original intention was still achieved while the underhandedness and dishonor behind it falls into the shadows and is soon forgotten.

She went on to say how she would be honored to serve her community if elected as an MLA again.

Translation: Having demonstrated that she can dishonor the many who supported her in the past, she would like the opportunity to pull the wool over a whole new group of supporters.

It’s pretty easy to see whose interests she is serving.

Can you guess?

I’ll make it easy for you.  The list is very short.

The fact that she didn’t see betrayal as something that would upset many speaks volumes of either her intelligence to understand the will of the people or her belief that the people are not very intelligent.

Neither reflect well on her as an alleged leader in her community and province.

Goals: It's best to avoid standing directly between a competitive jerk and his goals.

Accepting people like this as a senior player in the PC Party speaks volumes of Premier Prentice’s character as well but that’s a subject for another day.  Alberta will get a taste of his character in the next year or so as difficult times engulf the Province with the recession that has been predicted.

But it’s not just in Alberta ….

Last week in the Newfoundland and Labrador Legislature, a member of the Official Opposition made a comment during Question Period that Minister Judy Manning’s best position when it came to cost cutting was “under the table”. 

I’m surprised that women’s groups didn’t storm the legislature as a result but then again, they choose fights that suit their own needs, motives and timing.

It’s hard to believe that in the 21st century that we could have such derogatory comments made by a government official who alleges to serve as a servant to the public and as a role model to many.

What does that tell you about the state of government these days?

The Bottom Line

The world has reached a juncture where real leadership is needed to solve challenges in the areas of government spending, the economy, climate control, arms control, terrorism and other areas.

Is it any wonder that the leaders at the global level can’t seem get it done when one sees what we have at home in the form of leadership (or lack thereof)?

Do we care that such leaders form role models for our children?

Do we care that as the world burns in certain areas, that our leaders are the best we can come up with when it comes to guiding us out of difficulty and towards our unlimited potential or do we merely accept the message they are constantly espousing?

Excuses: If you keep asking others to give you the benefit of the doubt, they'll eventually start to doubt your benefit.

I think we should expect and demand better before things really hit the fan locally and globally (if it’s not too late already).

I also think we need leaders who serve the people and are not merely mouthpieces who serve their own interests or the interests of those who use them in return.

What do you think?

In service and servanthood.

Harry

Newfoundland / Alberta Ballot Boxes – Bring Your ID and Your KY

Divide and rule, the politician cries; unite and lead, is watchword of the wise. - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas. - Joseph Stalin

Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed. - Joseph Stalin

As I watch the leadership campaigns wind down for the PC Parties of Newfoundland and Labrador and Alberta, I have to wonder if politicians have finally lost their grasp on any basic understanding of what leadership is all about (or if they have given up pretending that they had any grasp in the first place).

In my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador, former Premier Danny Williams, in a move reminiscent of former Soviet Union leader Joseph Stalin, systematically destroyed any leaders who might have had aspirations to compete against him for power.  When Stalin needed leaders for military campaigns during World War II, he discovered that he had wiped out an entire generation of leadership necessary to lead his troops to victory. 

By the same token, then Premier Williams gutted the PC Party of potential successors and then when he suddenly resigned, the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador was plunged into a death spiral, first with the failed Premiership of Kathy Dunderdale and the debacle that followed when Premier-designate Frank Coleman suddenly stepped down.  Meanwhile, the leadership candidates currently competing for the title of “Last PC Premier For A Long Time” do little to evoke any form of confidence in much of the electorate.

Great leaders groom their successors, which didn’t happen in this case.  The legacy of a great leader is in large part based on how well prepared and enabled their successors are.

In addition, the PC Party was not strategic or astute enough to see the problems that this strategy created and thus allowed the seeds of their death spiral to be planted.

Meanwhile, sitting ministers in the Newfoundland Government continue to resign as they recognize the gravy train (aka public service) is drying up for them.

Which brings me to the four types of politicians that are prevalent in today’s political spheres in Newfoundland and Labrador.

There are politicians who truly see their vocation to serve the people and do the best they can in this capacity.  These are extremely rare in occurrence and need to be treasured when discovered.

There are the well-intentioned and the unqualified who step into politics with the intention to change the world but who are quickly brought into line by the bureaucrats, the real albeit non-elected power within government.

There are opportunists who jump into politics when the thoughts of certain election victories, nice pensions and the like are plentiful and easily obtained.

And then there are those who bail when the going gets tough for a political win  - when said win needs to be fought in the trenches while the people that the opportunists claim to serve are crying out for solutions for the difficult challenges facing the province.

I wonder what word best describes the latter group.

Perhaps you have a suggestion.

Meanwhile in Alberta ….

In another amazing lesson in leadership, the leadership candidates are spending their time undercutting each other (some more than others) and frankly, by the time they are done tearing each other apart, I wonder if any of the leaders will be left untainted enough to lead or if the divided PC Party caucus can be rallied around the leader that survives the leadership selection process.

We are used to dirty political campaigns when different candidates tear each other apart but when the tearing apart is taking place within the same party, one cannot help but wonder if so much damage is being done that victory is being handed to another party in the next general election.

Organizations can support healthy, vigorous debate to choose a new leader but when those candidates within a single party are focused on discrediting others within the same party, they forget that they may be destroying the future of not only their opponent but themselves and the Party at large as well.

The Bottom Line

Not voting is not an option.  I am a firm believer that in a democracy, the right to vote must always be exercised lest we lose that right.  That being said, too many politicians appear to be intent on proving that not voting is better than voting for the lesser of many evils.

The way things are going right now, the PC Party may not offering much to choose from in either Newfoundland and Labrador or Alberta in the next general election.  When the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador focused on destroying its leadership depth, they planted the seeds for their demise and are about to harvest the fruits of their labor.  The Liberals will sweep to victory and the NDP will continue to wallow in whatever they wallow in.

Meanwhile in Alberta, it appears that the leadership candidates of the PC Party are still sowing the seeds of their own destruction.  The crop they produce depends on how strategic, intelligent and opportunistic the other parties can be in the next general election.

I don’t know what’s worse – killing leadership candidates in advance or having the leadership candidates kill each other.

In either situation, if the PC Party expects voters to vote for them anyway, I wonder if they are expecting the voters to bring their own KY as well.

If nothing else, it will make voter penetration that much easier to accomplish.

That being said, no amount of KY is going to help if the voters resist the advances of the PC Party too much and the result will be much less pleasurable than desired by the PC Party or the electorate.

After all, there still needs to be some love in the end otherwise the people who need the love the most, the electorate, will be hurt the most instead.

I think we need better examples of leadership in a world hungry (desperate?) for strong, enabled, intelligent, selfless leaders.

What do you think?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

PS While I slagged the PC Party of the two provinces, I wonder if the other parties offer candidates or platforms worthy of replacing them or maybe all politicians are merely PR mouthpieces in front of the real people in power – the unelected bureaucrats whom we will never see.

Should we lower our expectations as low as possible to avoid disappointment?

I’m not certain - what do you think?

What I do know is that we need strategic, tactical, intelligent, unselfish leadership to solve many difficult problems right now on a provincial / state, federal and international level and that such leaders are becoming ever-increasingly difficult to find.

Here’s a small example of why this matters.  According to data released on September 5th, 2014 by Stats Canada, the number of unemployed in Newfoundland and Labrador is up over 26% from the same point in 2013.  In addition, there are over 58,000 people collecting E.I. and income support in the Province, producing an actual unemployment rate of over 22% when one considers a labor force of approximately 259,000 people.  Those are pretty ugly numbers to me.

Factor in additional things such as the fact that Brent Crude oil prices are still tracking below what the Province needs in order to meet its budget requirements (as I explained in Newfoundland–Should We Just Shoot It And Put It Out Of Its Misery?) and the following questions come to mind:

• “Does strong, intelligent, strategic leadership exist anymore within the political sphere?”
• “Should we demand better of our political / government leaders (and if so, why don’t we)?”
• “Are today’s government challenges just too complex for anyone to solve?”.

Don’t ask me for my answers.

What are yours?

PC Parties in Alberta and Newfoundland: What Are You Baking?

If you're trying to create a company, it's like baking a cake. You have to have all the ingredients in the right proportion. - Elon Musk

As I watch the PC Parties in the Provinces of Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador prepare to choose new leaders while simultaneously trying to run a government AND prepare for an election where their grip on power is threatened, I can’t help but think of Gerald Weinberg’s Bread Recipe Rule:

If you use the same baker, the same ingredients and the same recipe, then you will always get the same bread.

The PC Party in each Province has learned in recent months that the populace has empathically expressed that they don’t like the “bread” that their respective governments have been churning out.

But as I watch the Party in each Province execute a critical course correction that will impact their respective Party and Province for years to come, I wonder if they are really ready to change or if they still haven’t gotten over the euphoria of having written a really strong rah-rah message to their supporters with the hope that that alone will carry the day.  With apologies to a lot of well-intentioned people, the messages “we always win” or “we know we are the best” don’t sit well with a data-focused guy.  Unfortunately, questions such as “why?” and “how do you know?” are inconvenient “hot potatoes” and so should be avoided at all cost.

Consider these components of the Bread Recipe Rule:

The Baker – from discussions shared with me, each of the respective Parties is looking for a leader with many of the same traits found in the two Premiers that were chased out.  There are also many hidden bakers that the electorate doesn’t see.  While these out-of-sight bakers need to be changed also, the likelihood of that happening is slim even though their role in choosing the last leader that failed and in not removing them before irreparable damage to the PC Party was done was significant.  This time it will be different, I suppose …. just because.

The Ingredients – while the PC Party ideology is something that resonates with many, there are so many variants of it within the Party that it is difficult for members to coalesce around a unified set of principles.  I recently asked some government members in each of the Provincial Governments why they felt Progressive Conservatism best served the people and they couldn’t answer the question.  If you don’t believe it (or understand it), you can’t sell it.  Period.  Maybe they are there not because they believe in PC principles but because a popular party served their own needs at the time.  Gasp … could people be so devious or opportunistic?  Surely not!

The Recipe – I have been assured that the people in the PC Party in each Province find comfort in the same strategy, communication mechanisms, optics management and execution that has worked so successfully in the past …. well, with the exception of getting their respective leaders turfed in the middle of disastrous approval ratings and the possibility of being out of power for years to come.  Other than that last little bit, it works pretty well.

The Bottom Line

To the PC Parties of Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador, I offer this thought.

While traditions of history and success are powerfully intoxicating, if strategic and tactical execution doesn’t change with the times, it starts to look more like this:

Your respective fortunes didn’t die in the last two years (or in the last few months) suddenly and without warning.  Just as a large ocean freighter needs miles to make a course correction or a speeding train may need miles to stop, this seemingly sudden decline was years in the making – years of not recognizing or adjusting to the shift all around you.

And if you don’t embrace the magnitude of the shift that is occurring within your respective Parties and within the electorate and if you don’t see what is needed to adjust to, embrace and maximize the opportunities present in that shift, you may not like the smell that your recipe is producing.

In fact, it may not smell like bread at all.

In fact, it may smell like …. hang on a sec …..  <sniff> <sniff>.

Hmmmmmmm …. is that REALLY what you want to be baking?

I didn’t think so.

So you have two choices:

1. Adjust to the shift and find a way to create a win that serves the people as you honor the title of Public Servant.
2. Get used to losing.

Choose wisely.

In service and servanthood,

Harry

---

Related Posts:

• Politicians, Diapers and Why We Need To Change Both – March 22, 2014
• Alberta PC Party – Indecisiveness, Mixed Messaging and Paralysis – March 16, 2014
• Newfoundland – A Leadership Crisis, Not An Energy One – January 6, 2014
• Newfoundland – Leadership (Or Lack Of It) In Crisis – January 4, 2014

---

Politicians, Diapers and Why We Need To Change Both

I was really too honest a man to be a politician and live. - Socrates

Since a politician never believes what he says, he is quite surprised to be taken at his word. - Charles de Gaulle

As the dust settles from Premier Redford’s resignation this week, I wish people would stop acting surprised, stop blaming it on misguided misogyny (Danielle Smith and Donna Kennedy-Glans are still women the last time I checked) and not cry as Mayor Nenshi almost did when he talked about how allegedly good people were allegedly being cut down by the system.

Premier Redford, despite her sharp mental acuity and her articulate eloquence, enjoyed living a Life of luxury on the back of her taxpayers and saw nothing wrong with it.  Former Premier Dunderdale’s quick demise in Newfoundland should also have served as a warning about the dangers of indifference but sometimes ego gets in the way of learning opportunities and we miss them. When a Premier acts more like Marie Antoinette than a humble servant leader, there’s bound to be trouble.

Unless …….. your communications team knows how to paint you to the contrary!

Unfortunately, as the leader goes, so go their minions and the Premier’s communications team in their questionable competence chose to spend a fair chunk of their time taunting, insulting and arguing with people on platforms such as Twitter rather than focusing on demonstrating why the Premier was the right choice for Alberta. The Premier’s actions seemingly demonstrated qualities of indifference, apathy or elitism (whether accurate or not) and her communications team reinforced this message.

Watching interim Premier Hancock taunt the opposition on Thursday about how the PCs always win every election or Sandra Jansen (Associate Minister of Family & Community Safety) not know how to apologize for an insult she made against trades people tells me that the PC Party of Alberta still has much to learn about managing public optics.

And while bravado and machismo can be perceived as confidence, too much of it smells more like the contents of a diaper and if not changed quickly, will make people feel sick and need to leave the room.

A Different Type of Politician is Needed

I was listening to Bill Barry this week as he explained why he was running for the leadership of the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador and it struck me that this is the type of leader we need in the 21st century, specifically one who:

• is smart
• is passionate
• is humble (but not a doormat)
• is capable of making tough decisions when they need to be made
• calls it the way he sees it
• is not afraid of tackling the “political hot potatoes”
• is capable of working with others, including those who are not an official part of “his team”
• can speak to the people using a message that they can identify with.

People like former Premier Danny Williams have announced that they cannot support such a candidate and I can see why. It’s because people like Bill Barry represent the type of people we need to lead our world through challenging times and towards the potential that we are capable of producing.

In other words, someone who is atypical to what we are used to seeing in a politician and in fact, someone who represents a threat to the traditional political system.

The Bottom Line

Politics is a difficult and often thankless vocation and I am grateful for the many who make personal and professional sacrifices in order to serve others.  There are some great servant leaders out there in the political sphere and we must be careful not to dismiss all politicians as selfish, incompetent or in politics for their own gain.

However, like the Canadian Spa For the Elite (I mean the Canadian Senate), it seems that the higher some people get in the system, the more distance is placed between them and the voter and eventually the voter is lost somewhere beneath the clouds.

Service at the top is meant to be the ultimate servant leader role, guiding us through the challenges and opportunities before us.  It should not be perceived as a reward for someone who knew how to play “king of the mountain” the best (or a reward for the few who helped them up to the summit) while simultaneously forgetting that they exist to serve the masses.

As the PC Parties of Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador choose their next leaders respectively, they need to remember one thing.

While it may serve their short-term needs to put someone in power who creates benefits for themselves, putting someone in power who benefits the people and who resonates with the people will serve everyone’s long-term needs.

Otherwise, they might think they’ve pulled the wool over the eyes of the voter but in fact, it smells more like a diaper and no matter how awesome the brand of the diaper, it still smells the same.

And when that happens, a change is inevitable.

In service and servanthood,

Harry

PS If the voter is not smart enough to see through what the typical politician sells them, then maybe we’re filling our own diaper.  If that happens, it’s a lot harder to complain about the politician and be taken seriously.

Meanwhile, some PC supporters have asked me to take some of my recent posts down.  Maybe they are getting free consulting advice and they just don’t realize it.  Ahhhh ….. the disabling effect of the ego.

---

Addendum – Insight from Marc Doll

I was amused by and in full agreement with this astute observation from Marc.

---

Addendum – Clarification of My Intention

It has been suggested by some that my post was meant as a call to punish those who are successful or those who have made it to the top.  As a long time Fortune 25 and Wall St. strategy guy, far be it from me to even suggest that we should punish those who, through intelligence, hard work, determination and a little luck, have become successful.

People who are successful have every right to enjoy the harvest of their efforts.

However, if one strives to make their way to the top of the public service mountain, it is critical that they remember that they are at the top to serve and not merely to harvest for personal gain or through their actions, imply that they are there merely to harvest for themselves. 

It is, after all, called public service for a reason.

And therein lies a significant difference.

---

Related Posts:

• Alberta PC Party – Indecisiveness, Mixed Messaging and Paralysis – March 16, 2014
• Newfoundland – A Leadership Crisis, Not An Energy One – January 6, 2014
• Newfoundland – Leadership (Or Lack Of It) In Crisis – January 4, 2014

---

Kindness–The Ultimate Antagonist

Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain

Beginning today, treat everyone you meet as if they were going to be dead by midnight. Extend to them all the care, kindness and understanding you can muster, and do it with no thought of any reward. Your life will never be the same again. - Og Mandino

Those who know me well know that I often end conversations, whether it be in person, on social media or in emails, with one of several phrases:

Create a great day (or weekend).

Create a great day (or weekend) for yourself and others.

Create a great day, because merely having a great day is too passive an experience.

Create a great day for yourself and others, because merely having a great day is too passive an experience.

The phrases often draw interesting responses from people.  As my friend Sara K. noted today on LinkedIn:

I like it when you say that. Makes me feel powerful.

My friend Steve B. had this to say about the phrase:

I like the invitation to create something meaningful. You are giving credit to me for having talent and capability.

My friend Mark C. suggested in fun that perhaps I should offer a different, less intimidating variant such as:

Today is a gift. Don’t screw it up.

However, some people exhibit a different response to the phrases.  As an example, I am inviting a guest writer to share his thoughts on the phrase.  This person, a resident of Calgary, shared his musings on Twitter in crisp, poignant form today in response to my request to create a great day.

As a long time Wall St’er, I’ve never been accused of being a hippie before. Other than that, name calling on Wall St. is quite common although he missed some of our favorite phrases.

As background, I had responded to a remark by Danielle Smith, head of the Wildrose Party and the Official Opposition in the Alberta Legislature, when she claimed that she never blocks anyone on Twitter unless they are disrespectful.  When I remarked that people like myself had been blocked by her for asking for data to support assertions made by her, I was blessed to have an interaction with this gentleman.  After a few exchanges with him, I expressed my usual signoff and the afore mentioned tweets were his response.

Explaining “Create a Great Day”

When I ask people to “Create a great day”, I am sincere about it.  My greatest desire for those around me is that they have the opportunity to create the greatest experience possible for themselves and for others.  Merely “having a great day” implies that one will wait for a good day to arrive (hopefully) whereas creating one increases the odds of experiencing a great day or if a great day is already being experienced, then perhaps there is an opportunity to make it even better.

So my use of the phrase could be considered to be equivalent to Namaste (the divine in me honors the divine in you), God be with you, have fun, have a blast, good luck, best wishes, aloha, serve others, love Life, grab a pizza with friends and whatever else you wish to embrace …. all rolled into one.

Friends of mine observing this interaction today had some interesting things to say about it.  My friend Doug P. had this observation when people were discussing the possibility of an underlying, hidden issue within some people (my emphasis added):

Yes, there are probably some hidden issues. I think those same issues would come into play with "have a good day" if it were not a ubiquitous, empty platitude. Your formulation is uncommon. People have to think a little about it. When angry people think, their anger goes on display.

Some people don’t like kindness or don’t know how to deal with it.

There are, sadly, people who don’t know how to respond to respect, civility and kindness.  Many such people miss some of the greatest joys in Life because they are too busy being unhappy and they are content to bring others down to share in their darkness.  While it is unfortunate that they should be so unhappy, it is unfair and inappropriate that they choose to impose their lack of joy, respect and civility onto others.

They go through Life steamrolling over others until they run into people like me.  Unfortunately for them, while I don’t seek trouble, I do not step aside when trouble is before me, since I know that if I step aside, the trouble that stands before me will continue their agenda of steamrolling and destroying others.  In such situations, some soften their approach when their attempts to intimidate and bully are met with respect and an interest in exchange. Others exhibit behavior like my guest writer above.

Sometimes you find such people in clusters

I find it intriguing that oftentimes when I ask for clarity from the Wildrose Party or I challenge an assertion made by them (requesting data to back up their assertion) I am often beset upon by someone like the person noted above.  Curiously enough, when I challenge other parties for clarity, I am not beset upon in the same way.  It was my experience with such angry people in the past that inspired me to write Anger: Setting Yourself Up For Manipulation.

Now in fairness, I have had some GREAT interactions with passionate supporters of the Wildrose Party, including people like Vitor M., Rick N. and Dave W. (you know who you are) and others.  They are passionate, intelligent people who, while possessing different political beliefs than I do, can listen, share, object, agree and give and take respectfully and intelligently.  They are as passionate about creating a better future for themselves, their families and their province as I am and this, above all, means that we agree and disagree our way towards a common goal – the creation of a greater tomorrow!

But there remains many people out there who are on simmer all the time and when respectful people like me come along with no agenda other than to learn, to share, to verify information (mine and others) and to collaboratively create a better world, they assume there MUST be an agenda and so they go on the offensive.

And sadly, the Wildrose Party, often referred to as the “angry party”, still has a number of such people circulating within and around the Party.  And while there is something to be said about the company that one keeps, the difficulty of being surrounded by such people and not discouraging their attacks on others is this:

Attacking reveals your weaknesses as well as your strengths.
Choose your battles carefully.

The Bottom Line

We must always strive to meet obstinance, intimidation, bullying and the like with as much kindness, civility and respect as we can muster. That being said, for some bullies, turning the other cheek or ignoring their presence will not solve the situation at-hand and may inadvertently condone or strengthen their forceful nature.  Force must sometimes be met with equal force or be gently redirected – always respectfully and kindly.

Eventually the bullies will see a better way and will change.

Or they will pick up their toys (and their negative intentions) and go home.

Or someone else (maybe you) will take their toys (and their power) away from them and send them home.

In all cases, kindness, civility and respect will still carry the day. 

Anger, when redirected, refocused and retasked into energy intent on making positive change can produce great results.  Anger when uncontrolled or misdirected merely hurts randomly or creates confusion.

It’s like splitting an atom.  Doing it well can produce relatively clean energy for a Lifetime. Doing it poorly can kill thousands or millions in a single flash.

It all comes down to personal choice of intention and execution.  Being separated by the distance and perceived anonymity that social media affords should not be a licence or excuse for people to treat each other with less respect than if they were standing face to face nor should one strive to be the twit in Twitter.

In a world of ever-increasing complexity and beauty simultaneously where technology often trumps humanity, I think there is still a strong need for some basic human values.

What do you think?

In service and servanthood.  Create a great day for yourself and others, because merely having a great day is too passive an experience.

Harry

PS For those who struggle with others merely because they resent or envy them in some way, I offer this amusing poster from the great folks at Despair.com.

Is Mayor Naheed Nenshi a Racist?

The single biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place. - George Bernard Shaw

We're all islands shouting lies to each other across seas of misunderstanding. - Rudyard Kipling

Mayor Nenshi of Calgary, Alberta found himself in hot water this week when he said the following during a presentation about diversity:

We are lousy at promoting a diverse workforce. When you look at our management levels within the city, my top six managers, there are no women right now. The one woman retired. There are no people of a visible minority. Throughout our 34 next most senior managers at the city, I haven’t actually done the census but off the top of my head I can think of one person from a visible minority. And a handful of women.

We’ve got to do a better job. And we have to look internally at our own organization to determine what are the barriers that are in place towards people getting promoted into these jobs.

A lot of people climbed all over the Mayor with the belief that his comments were promoting racism or gender-bias.

I don’t think he was doing either and from what I know of the Mayor, he is not only NOT a racist but that he probably possesses more empathy and compassion for ALL people than most leaders you will ever meet.

However, I believe he is making a great mistake in the generalization that he made in his presentation.

The error, I believe, is that he may be about to send his people on a wild goose chase based on an assumption.

Let me explain.

Back in the mid 1980’s, the organization that I was a part of received notification that we faced criminal charges based on someone’s assumption that we were intentionally discriminating against women and minorities.

The accusing organization simply knew this because we didn’t have any women or visible minorities working for us.  This was, obviously, an assumption and an incorrect understanding of cause and effect.

Keep in mind that:

- we were a small company of 10 people (albeit a successful company), so there wasn’t a lot of room for demographic variation

- in the mid 1980’s, women and visible minorities in the IT industry were not as common as they are today.

That being said, this group marched in with the intention of proving our evil ignorance of diversity and so they began by examining all the resumes that we had received since our inception.

They went through more than 800 resumes and from what they could see, no women or visible minorities had even applied to our classified ads.

“So”, they concluded, “you must have worded your ad to intentionally discourage them from applying.”

Another assumption.

When they examined the classified ad, they informed us that the ad needed to be changed so that we would give preference to women and visible minorities.

And as anyone who has ever argued with me knows, you better come to the argument armed with data – data that is in alignment with your own raison d'être and your modus operandi.

So when they presented me with a draft of the ad we should run the next time we were hiring, I pointed out that the wording was actually in violation of the rules they were attempting to enforce.

They took it back and reworded it.

After several iterations, they gave up and left us alone and we never heard from them again.

And yes, eventually as the IT marketplace changed, we hired women and visible minorities.  We didn’t care about the demographic the candidate represented – we cared about hiring the best people possible.

Affirmative action

I could go on to describe the effect of affirmative action programs and how improper promotion on Wall St. (my stomping grounds) has created a bloody mess that YOU are paying for and will continue to pay for for many years.

I could talk about how affirmative action and the intentional promotion of certain demographics is now being reviewed as being potentially harmful to the people it is intended to help, as described in this this article from the NY Times where they note (my emphasis added):

The idea that affirmative action might harm its intended beneficiaries was suggested as early as the 1960s, when affirmative action, a phrase introduced by the Kennedy administration, began to take hold as government and corporate policy. One long-simmering objection to affirmative action was articulated publicly by Clarence Thomas years before he joined the Supreme Court in 1991.

Mr. Thomas, who has opposed affirmative action even while conceding that he benefited from it, told a reporter for The New York Times in 1982 that affirmative action placed students in programs above their abilities. Mr. Thomas, who was then the 34-year-old chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, didn’t deny the crisis in minority employment. But he blamed a failed education system rather than discrimination in admissions. “I watched the operation of such affirmative action policies when I was in college,” he said, “and I watched the destruction of many kids as a result.”

And so to generally blame “someone” for lack of fairness in demographic representation sends people down a rabbit hole of whether affirmative action works, it doesn’t, who the experts are and a plethora of other things that leaves the original problem (if there even is one) unsolved.

As I said to the group that attempted to judge us in the mid 1980’s:

If society doesn’t create someone who wants the job I am offering, you can’t blame me for not hiring them.

You also can’t legislate it as Justice Thomas noted since the repercussions on the people you are trying to help are largely unknown (or ignored).

Bottom Line:

We don’t fix problems such as diversity by accidentally or purposefully whipping people into a fervor with an assumption or a generalization as the Mayor may have done so in his presentation. 

After all, it is entirely possible that the people who hold the positions that the Mayor referenced may in fact be the most qualified people for their positions within all of the municipal governments across Canada and if that’s the case, why would you want to assume that the positions need to be assessed or changed?

There is also the reality that one assumption or generalization tends to lead to another …. and another … and another.  And at the end of the day after following a trail of assumptions and generalizations, we probably won’t have made much measurable, effective progress at all.

Mayor Nenshi’s comments are not racist or gender biased.

But I think he (and all of us) should be careful how a simple assumption or generalization, stated with authority, can lead to a whirlwind of activity without a complete understanding of true cause and effect and the real complexity buried within the perceived issues.

For as we all know, the devil is in the details.

What do you think?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Surviving Climate Change–The Elephant in the Room

If we stop all greenhouse gas emissions, will global climate change stop?

Industrial activity has already pumped billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and we have yet to see the full effect of warming from those gases. A great deal of excess energy imbalance is stored in the ocean and will be released gradually over time, continuing to warm the planet.

In other words, some degree of climate change is irreversible. Scientists call this the "committed warming," and estimate that the Earth would continue to warm about 1 degree Fahrenheit (.6 degrees Celsius) even if greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere stopped growing immediately. That is, if all human greenhouse gas emissions stopped tomorrow, the Earth would still warm for at least a half-century. – NASA (emphasis added)

As I listened today to Alberta Government Minister Diana McQueen poke jabs at Opposition Leader Danielle Smith’s personal beliefs about climate change versus what Ms. Smith’s official party policy will be, I couldn’t help but notice the elephant in the room.

As we all argue about whether it is a natural cyclical phenomenon or a man-made one (or both), whether we are warming or cooling, whether someone’s data is accurate or exaggerated, what reasonable reductions in greenhouse emissions are needed, what carbon tax regimens will work best to expedite reductions, etc., we face a reality that I never hear any politician speak about.

It is the reality that if, as opined by NASA, we could stop all greenhouse emissions tomorrow, we have at least 50 years of climate change inertia before us where we will continue to experience significant events in the environment.

Events like ….

- the droughts in Australia

- Hurricane Sandy

- flooding in Calgary and High River

- insert personal event experience here

These are events that are likely to increase in frequency and intensity.

And so as I listen to people argue about melting versus freezing ice caps, whether sea levels will rise an inch or a yard, whether the changes are natural or artificial or I see personal attacks to score political points, I would like to ask a question that doesn’t seem to get much airtime.

What do we intend to do to survive larger, more frequent floods, hurricanes, droughts and everything else?

I’m not saying that research into our contribution to climate change is not important.

But finally identifying our contribution will offer little comfort if we continue to be steamrolled by it because we put more of our focus into stopping what may be unstoppable or if stoppable, not stoppable in a heartbeat … or my personal favorite …. what company, industry or country is mostly to blame.

I wonder if we have secretly thrown in the towel, finding it more satisfying personally, professionally, politically, reputationally and economically to pretend that preventing it is within our reach and that on the day that the magic pill is found, everything will simply reverse to pre-climate change levels?

Are we willing to bet our survival on it?

Climate change will always be with us, regardless of the reason.

Are we able to demonstrate our ability to change with it or are we going to continue to act surprised when events steamroll over us, followed by the inevitable political rhetoric of how we “rose to the occasion yet again”?

Because if we aren’t able to provide better strategies regarding surviving climate change, I would posit that we are more like ostriches than humans.

What do you think?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Addendum – November 2, 2013

An interesting item – President Obama passes an Executive Order to prepare the nation to survive the effects of climate change.

The Alternate Reality of Politicians

Divide and rule, the politician cries; unite and lead, is watchword of the wise. - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

A hypocrite is the kind of politician who would cut down a redwood tree, then mount the stump and make a speech for conservation. - Adlai E. Stevenson

I have always been fascinated by the alternate reality that politicians live in.

Take for example, The Minister of Municipal Affairs in Alberta, the Honorable Doug Griffiths.

When asked to comment on Opposition Leader Danielle Smith’s plans to hold a town hall to once again express anger over the RCMP and their seizure of weapons in flood-ravaged High River, Alberta, he made an interesting faux pas when he said:

“I am sick and tired of people like her going around trying to blame people when we’re still trying to rebuild the community. It’s fucking embarrassing.”

One of the rules of politics (and business) is that you never let your opponent see you sweat.  As the Opposition Leader, Ms. Smith is paid to represent her constituents, lead her party AND get under the skin of the government.

When a member of the government drops the f-bomb as a result of her actions, the Opposition Leader can only think “mission accomplished – what else can I do to to continue this momentum?”

In addition, in the business world, such words issued against a colleague would immediately motivate HR to investigate – requiring an apology at best or other disciplinary action, including termination.

This rarely happens in the political world.  Even when an Alberta member of government was found to be using his government influence for the benefit of his own company, he was found to be guilty of unethical behavior but not illegal.

I guess it comes down to realities and rationalization. :-(

And finally, we are always loudly trumpeting anti bullying / anti intimidation legislation, especially legislation designed to create a better world for children.

But it doesn’t matter how much legislation we pass to encourage people to treat others with respect.

People model what they see

Unfortunately, politicians can pass legislation that promotes one idea while living another and not see the difference between them.

Meanwhile in High River …..

Ms. Smith held another town hall in High River where angry residents had another opportunity to vent the anger they have vented repeatedly, the only difference being that this time, they had an opportunity to vent it towards representatives of the RCMP.

The reasons for their anger have been documented and expressed many times since June so I’m not certain that another round of yelling and screaming “moves the ball”.

In the real world, upon first capturing the essence of a problem, a problem solver says “I hear you loud and clear.  I will do what it takes to get this resolved and will report periodically on progress or ask for your opinion should we reach a point where decisions needs to be made”.

But in the political world, while Ms. Smith may have taken some actions on behalf of her constituents, she is still focused on the importance of whipping up anger.

The time for anger has passed.

What matters now is focus on execution and results that benefit the people of High River.

Continued anger and outrage in lieu of results only benefits the politician who encourages it.

In the real world, anyone who has their marching orders but continues to convene meetings to revisit their marching orders will cause people to think:

• Did this person not hear us the first time?
• Does this person not know how to solve this problem?
• We have already expressed our anger over this – why does this person want us to keep revisiting our anger instead of solving the problem?
• Why are we wasting our time rehashing everything we already know?
• If we meet enough times, maybe we need to turn our attention to the person who keeps reconvening us.

But this is not the real world.

This is politics, where anger and obfuscation are often more useful than results, as I posited here - Anger: Setting Yourself Up For Manipulation.

Ms. Smith knows what the issues are, she knows the anger that is simmering amongst the citizens and she knows what is at stake.

All that is left are measurable results that benefit citizens – the bane of many politicians.

And speaking of producing measurable results that benefit citizens ….

President Obama is insisting on the need to perform a military strike against Syria when he, John Kerry and their many political and military advisors cannot publicly identify the actual threat to America, the benefit to America in carrying out the attack or the downstream ramifications of what might happen should an attack be launched.

And as I listen to them play chess with our safety and our lives yet again, I think of the 15 close friends that I lost in the World Trade Center almost 12 years ago and the thousands of loved ones who were lost on that day and in the wars that followed.

When politicians use our security, our well being and our lives in the grand scheme of the strategy game they are engaged in, they do it with lots of upside and little downside … for themselves.

My friends cared little for the political, diplomatic and military tit for tat exercises that ultimately produced their death.

Meanwhile, the people who participated in the events that led up to 9/11 have moved on to bigger and better things, safe behind the security only available to those who play God with the lives of others.

The bottom line

The greatest challenge in our world is that the definitions of reality in the real world and the political world will continue to diverge until all politicians are forced to live the realities that they create for others.

Only then will they realize what needs to be done and how quickly it needs to be done in order to create a better world for everyone.

As James Freeman Clarke once said:

A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation.

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Addendum

Minister Griffiths has apologized for his use of the f-bomb as noted earlier.

Disaster–The Best Thing That Ever Happened

As a strategy guy, I have taken an interest in how the post-flood recovery is being handled in Alberta and I have come to a realization.

The flooding may be the best thing that ever happened to Danielle Smith and the Wildrose Party. 

While the party would deny that they are taking advantage of the situation on the backs of citizens who got wiped out, any political strategist would call them foolhardy for not taking advantage of the situation.  That’s the way the game is played and historically, the common man has always born on their own backs the burden of those in power, whether it be a local event or a global war.

In a time of fiscal challenge in Alberta, Ms. Smith is walking the difficult walk of demanding that the government not spend money it doesn’t have while simultaneously insisting that citizens demand the right to be relocated by the government at the government’s expense.

Watching her in action at a town hall, it could be debated whether she is merely supporting the anger and frustration being experienced by the citizens or if she is actually fuelling it.  Anger is a very useful tool as I wrote about here Anger: Setting Yourself Up For Manipulation.

However, her seemingly two-faced strategy is strategically brilliant and demands an equally brilliant response from the current government.

To influence the mind, one must touch (or torch) the heart.

Is Ms. Smith ….

…. a hypocrite or a hero?

…. astute or asinine?

…. politically savvy, politically stupid or politically suicidal?

We will only know upon historical reflection.

The history books are written by the victors and within those pages, it will be revealed for whom the disaster really was the best thing …. or the worst.

In service and servanthood,

Harry

 

Addendum – July 29, 2013

A few readers reached out to me privately and asked if my comment “history books are written by the victors” was a veiled reference to Wildrose Party Press Secretary Vitor (Victor) Marciano and a future victory for the Wildrose Party.

I don’t make veiled references.  Nice try, though! :-)

Mike Allen, Politicians and Apologies

Mike Allen resigned from the Alberta Legislature yesterday after being arrested as part of a prostitution sting.

As is typical for politicians, he came forward with the standard apology (Politician Apology, Version 1.5, available at your favorite business supply store) which contained stock phrases such as:

- this is a deeply embarrassing moment

- I humbly ask for forgiveness

- I will work hard to regain trust

We’ve heard these apologies before, whether from politicians like Anthony Weiner and Elliot Spitzer, evangelist Jimmy Swaggart, etc.

And they all came back bigger and better than ever, at least according to their followers. 

Scorned today – star tomorrow

My personal policy on apologies is based on my simplistic perception of two types of people in the world:

1. The honest type doing the best they can in a challenging world.  They trip up on occasion and make honest mistakes merely because they are human.  An apology from such individuals is unnecessary because they made a normal, human mistake which any of us may have made in the same circumstances.  Anyone claiming to have never made such mistakes is deluded, psychotic or a liar.

2. The dishonest type who make their way through Life taking advantage of others or serving their own selfish needs at the sacrifice of others.  They do things that are unethical, immoral or illegal and continue to happily do so until they are caught.  The obligatory apology that follows rings hollow since more than likely they are more upset that they were caught than for the actual act itself.  Since the apology is therefore often insincere in regards to the reason it was offered, such apologies are unnecessary and in fact, may be insulting to those affected.  Many such people use such an apology to prepare the stage for a comeback later so that they may resume their previously established behavior.

And that is why I find that apologies are unnecessary at best (from good people) and manipulative and deceptive at worst (from less than desirable individuals).

Which camp does Mike Allen fall in?

I don’t know him well enough to say.

I guess what he does in the future will demonstrate the nature of his character and will define the true intention for his apology.

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Addendum – July 23, 2013

Case in point.  It was announced today that Anthony Weiner, while disgraced and chased from office in 2011, participated in a new round of inappropriate behavior during the summer of 2012.  It goes to show that people’s actions speak so loudly that you often can’t hear what they are saying.

Disaster: How Prepared Are We Really?

In the midst of the flooding going on in Alberta today, I was surprised (and not) to see tweets similar to the following:

… and this reference on the Calgary emergency response website (red highlighting is mine):

Even relying on third party services like Twitter for emergency communication can produce problems like this one below (especially poignant when towns like High River suggested that people get their updates from places like Twitter because their town website went down due to traffic overload as noted in a previously shown tweet):

As a ham radio operator and being trained in emergency communication, I have always had a worry about our communication network (including cellphones, landlines and the Internet) and its inability to serve our needs during times of emergency – the one time when we really need it.

During 9/11, our telephone network (cell and landlines) collapsed in a combination of infrastructure loss as the World Trade Center collapsed plus capacity overload as everyone reached for a phone.

More recently, during the Boston Marathon bombing, cellphone service also became disrupted as first responders, runners, bystanders, family members of runners / bystanders and everyone else hit the network.  Conspiracy people were disappointed to hear that the US government had indeed not shut down the network as some believed.

It just got overloaded.

The bottom line is that our communication and information systems are built only to serve a certain percentage of users at once and for the foreseeable future, this is the way it will remain.  Unfortunately, the cost and energy required to build networks that can withstand 100% of the users that it serves will always be prohibitive barring new discoveries in cheaper, lower-footprint technology.

Also unfortunately, when emergencies hit we will always get a lot more users on our communication and information infrastructure than the infrastructure was designed for, resulting in communication difficulties or outright failures.

This doesn’t just prevent us from being able to reach a loved one.  Such communication difficulties may also impact first responders who are relying on the same technology in certain situations as the afore mentioned tweet proves.

The bottom line is this.

Lives could be at stake as a result - the lives of you, your family and others.

And since communication is one of the primary needs during an emergency (besides critical items such as shelter, medical supplies, food and water), one has to ask one’s self:

If a widespread emergency should strike my area tomorrow, what communication mechanisms can I count on to reach out to others to make sure they are ok, to let others know that I am ok, to call for help or to offer help.

If you can’t answer that question, then perhaps you should explore your options.

Governments have and continue to work on contingency plans in the event of disaster – natural or manmade.

The onus is on us as citizens to contribute to this planning process as much as possible and to do whatever we can to minimize our exposure to concerns of personal safety.

The day may come when we reach for our phone when we really need it and nobody will be on the other end.

What will you do for yourself or your family then?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Note:

A special word of thanks to the brave men and women who are serving the needs of the many who are affected by this storm.  Where would we be without their brave, unselfish efforts?

My comments regarding strained infrastructure today are not a criticism of the people who own the infrastructure.  They did the best they could with what they have.  My point is that we all need to step up to help them in order to assure all of our safety.

A Warning:

This is also a sobering reminder of what can be produced by Mother Nature.  Is it any wonder that certain governments are researching ways of controlling weather for the purposes of using Mother Nature as a weapon?

Addendum – June 24, 2013

As is often the case, in the event post mortem that is starting to develop we discover that the Alberta flood event didn’t come without some warnings in the past as noted here.  The government study with recommendations described in the news report was released after the last major flood event in Calgary in 2005.

Maybe we need to pay more attention to such warnings.  Unfortunately, when it comes to such things, when balancing risk versus cost, we usually accept the risk.  Sometimes we get lucky – sometimes we don’t.

I am reminded yet again of the words of my former father-in-law (now deceased), a decorated USAF colonel and war hero.  In 1991, he told me that within circles of senior military officials and advisors to the President, the greatest perceived threat to national security were terrorist groups commandeering commercial aircraft and using them against domestic targets.  What ensued 10 years later changed America and the world forever.

We acted surprised then also.

Addendum – June 25, 2013

From the “history teaches us that history teaches us nothing” department, Alberta Environment Minister McQueen indicated today that the province will not consider restricting new development on flood plains at this time.  While it is too early to decide what restrictions should be in place, it is also too early to say that they will not consider restricting it.

If such an intention is carried out, new development replacement is condemned to be carried at the expense of the insurance companies (should they decide to offer flood insurance) or the municipal, provincial and federal governments.

And a future flood disaster is a “when” and not an “if” if other risk mitigation strategies aren’t put into effect.

Danielle Smith–Something Wicked This Way Comes

Editor note: During the same time period that this blog was being released, Danielle Smith, Opposition Leader and leader of the Wildrose Party, was revealing her perspective on the events surrounding Tom Flanagan.  References in this blog to Ms. Smith not having responded to questions are now different in context since she has since responded to the media although said references in the original text of the blog remain.  Given that I find her explanation weak at best, especially from someone with aspirations to be Premier of Alberta, the analysis in this blog stands as originally presented.  The original blog follows.

Now that the emotion has mostly worked its way out of the Tom Flanagan affair, there are still some intriguing elements at play that I find interesting as a strategy person.

Back in April of 2012, I was critical of Wildrose Party and Alberta Government Opposition Leader Danielle Smith’s handling of some controversial events and how she reacted by appearing to be annoyed that the electorate would dare demand that she take some form of action.  I also cautioned readers that they got the government that they deserved if they proceeded to elect her as Premier during the election (which they didn’t).

Now I see a new approach to controversy that she has adopted when things hit the fan.

She just disappears.

Now in fairness it would be difficult to absorb the impact of hearing the news that Mr. Flanagan, her former election campaign manager and associate in the right-wing think tank Civitas, has claimed more than once that child pornography is not a big deal since there are no victims and that he happened to “be put on” the mailing list for the North American Man Boy Love Association.

To be allegedly blindsided by such an event would be devastating to anyone, especially if one is in public office.

However, I guess it depends on the nature of how she was blindsided, doesn’t it?

If there is the possibility that she was blindsided more by the revealing of his opinion to the public than the discovery of such a belief system, then we have a different issue.

And when she vanishes and leaves Albertans to cut each other apart in the vacuum of facts and data while she pretends to “be busy”, then it speaks VERY poorly about her leadership style.

It also speaks very poorly about her beliefs regarding whom she serves … the people of Alberta.

Meanwhile in the Twitterverse ….

The Twitterverse was alive with this story and as usual, the rhetoric, hatred and fact-less debate that swirled around the story proved that many people have a natural ability to “be the the twit in twitter”.

One person commented on my observations by telling me that there is no issue with saying that child pornography doesn’t hurt anyone – that such a statement is just an expression of an extreme ideological belief.

I replied by asking her if she would have felt the same way if he had stated that wife battery is a crime that hurts no one.

She never answered.

Meanwhile Ms. Smith marched out her obligatory statement to distance herself and her party from his comments.  Yawn – any politician would do the same thing. 

It takes no courage to do the expected.

However, she has not answered the question about whether she knew about Mr. Flanagan’s beliefs before hiring him as her campaign manager and contributor to Wildrose Party policy.

And that answer matters because it provides insight into her character.

You are the company that you keep

Mr. Flanagan has a history of “unusual remarks”, including other comments about child pornography in 2009 as well as expressing the need for someone to assassinate Julian Assange for his role with Wikileaks.

If anyone in my inner circle made such statements, they would be removed from my inner circle – quickly and permanently.

Who I am and who I am perceived to be is in large part measured by the type of people I associate with.

And so if Ms. Smith had any advance knowledge of this man’s views, then I have to wonder about a few things.

1. Did she chose to separate his personal views from his professional contributions and hope she could ignore the former while leveraging the latter?  This is a flawed strategy since everything we are as a human being flows back and forth between our personal and professional lives.

2. Does she possibly agree with many of his ideas but finds them politically inconvenient to allow such ideas to leak out to the public.  After all, she did invite him to be her campaign manager and contributor to the creation of Wildrose policy.  Anyone who works on any of my teams, while not always in lock step with everything I think, must still have a moral and ethical compass that resonates with mine otherwise we don’t work together.

3.  Some people have suggested that his behavior doesn’t reflect criminal intention (which may be the case) but that he merely is able to objectivise the human experience to the point where he can analyze such things as child pornography in the same way that we might observe an insect, emotionless and analytical.  If this is true, I wonder what type of government such emotionless, analytical observation would produce.

4. Is she a puppet for someone more powerful in the Wildrose Party and every once in a while, is stuck with sucking up the public punishment for someone else’s ignorance?

5. How did his views evade due diligence?  I don’t think they did – the beliefs were just ignored for reasons of need and convenience.

We get the government that we deserve

None of these elements produce much comfort.

However, we will never know the truth since Ms. Smith has resurfaced as if the event had never happened.  She hasn’t answered questions about whether she knew in the past as claimed by some people, preferring to discuss other things in the hope that this event will fade into the past.

And with such behavior, she exhibits the same attributes that too many politicians have …. the gifts of avoidance and secrecy.

But events like this one and ones in the past for the Wildrose Party suggest that there is something else swirling around within the Party and its leadership that is not immediately obvious.

Or maybe it is obvious but we choose to be apathetic, indifferent or afraid to demand answers  - being afraid of being bullied by the ignorant and uninformed who follow some people blindly.

Which leads me to repeat what I had said in my previous observations about Ms. Smith.

These events and how she is handling them are early indications of what her leadership of the Province might look like.

The famous quote “We get the government we deserve” applies here.  When we blindly elect a party and a leader without taking the time to understand what we are electing, then we deserve what we get.

I just don’t want to hear anybody whining about it later because the damage will already have been done.

However, the real reason I don’t want to hear any whining is because Ms. Smith will not be alone in owning responsibility for the damage.

We will share the blame, for having enabled her in the first place.

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Addendum – March 2, 2013

In this Calgary Herald article from March 2, 2013, Ms. Smith claims that Mr. Flanagan’s beliefs took her completely by surprise.  The fact that she has worked side by side with Mr. Flanagan for years and the fact that he had made similar statements in the public previously suggests that either her current statements of surprise are not true, she doesn’t pay attention to the company she keeps, she is junior or incompetent as a leader or she is totally naive as a human being.

In this Edmonton Sun article on March 1, 2013, she says that she’s heard loud and clear that Albertans want her to say what she believes.  Leaders don’t need to be told this – they should already know it and demand it of themselves and others.

When one then considers comments such as back in October of 2012 when she suggested that meat tainted with e coli could somehow be rendered safe and be fed to the homeless (implying that what’s not good enough for most people or animals is good enough for the homeless) and this summary of some of her personal beliefs (referenced as a summary only - I do not endorse that author’s content in general) , one cannot help but wonder if there is a vacuum of strong, consistent, authentic leadership within the WRP.  For these reasons, my analysis of how she handled this event and my concerns regarding her leadership remain.

Many people will suggest that this is all part of a learning experience as she grows into her leadership role.

Maybe so – but is that a risk that the electorate wants to take a gamble on?