Showing posts with label Donald Trump. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Donald Trump. Show all posts

Friday, November 17, 2017

#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?

Friday, October 27, 2017

Clarity and the 12 Sins of Poorly Defined Outcomes

It is still not enough for language to have clarity and content... it must also have a goal and an imperative. Otherwise from language we descend to chatter, from chatter to babble and from babble to confusion. - Rene Daumal

At some point, a flash of sustained clarity reveals the difference between what someone would have you believe is true, and what you know from the depths of your own heart to the peaks of your soul to be true. What happens after that is up to you. – Aberjhani

A couple of weeks ago, in the middle of some intense frustration over some  business intentions that have refused to cross the finish line no matter how much nudging and force was applied, I stepped away from social media.

I put my 25 million connections across different platforms on hold, exchanging the useful and the useless (read: mundane or inane) chatter for quiet and replacing the incessant online chatting with people I’ve never met with more high-quality, in-person time.  An observation I made to CBC Sunday Edition regarding this was read (in part) on their show last week.  It is at 43:43 of hour 1 and was in response to this interesting piece - The anti-democratic reign of Facebook, Apple, Google and Amazon.

I also went on a diet from mainstream media.  With President Trump dominating most conversation channels any, I didn’t think I would be missing much.

And in the blessed quiet that ensued, I applied a technique not often used in my industry to explore the delays plaguing my project.

As an uber-left-brained, ultra Type A personality, it is sometimes difficult for me to get the analytical side of my brain to just shut up, stop analyzing everything around it and allow the creative right side of my brain to have a go at something that intense logic alone can’t figure out.

Using a process that borrows from techniques that artists use to maximize their potential, I set about exploring the dilemma that plagued my teams.

The process goes like this, utilizing key strengths of each side of the brain in a structured, strategic way:

  1. First Insight - Back away from deep analysis of the problem and explore key insights with the right side of the brain (non problem-solving mode), allowing the brain to wander “aimlessly” around the problem.
  2. Saturation - Overload the left side of the brain with the background data, context, rules, constraints and other things associated with the issue but but do not try to solve the problem.
  3. Incubation - Wander away from the problem and work on anything BUT the problem, allowing the right side of the brain to creatively wander through the space, unimpeded by the analytical, logical side of the brain that insists it has the solution (an assertion unproven to this point).
  4. Illumination – AHA moments arrive suddenly and out of nowhere as the issue that has been bothering you suddenly has solutions presented from the creative side of the brain.
  5. Verification – Bring the left side of the brain back into play and verify that the AHA solution is appropriate, relevant, viable and actionable and use the left side of the brain to create a new strategy, guided by the creativity from the right side of the brain.

For a deeper explanation of how this process works, I recommend Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain: The Definitive, 4th Edition.

In the clarity and grey-matter wandering that ensued, I came up with 12 sins regarding outcomes that were being committed by all parties involved in my current project and armed with the list, I presented them to inside and outside teams this morning.

Here are the 12 sins – how many are you or your organization(s) guilty of?

  1. Unknown Outcomes – they have been defined but for a variety of reasons, are unknown to some key individuals or have been forgotten by them.
  2. Hidden / Obfuscated Outcomes – an outcome important to one or more people has been intentionally hidden from some people for reasons that benefit the owners of those outcomes.
  3. Poorly Defined Outcomes – almost better than having no outcomes but potentially also more dangerous than having no defined outcomes as they are missing key elements of evidenced-based assumptions, specific measurable components and date-sensitive completion targets.
  4. Undefined Outcomes – some people didn’t even bother to define them for their team(s).
  5. Conflicting Outcomes – outcomes from different individuals / teams are running at odds with each other because of execution or interpretation.
  6. Competing Outcomes – poor prioritization or focus has allowed outcomes to compete within the brains of a single person or team.
  7. Fluid Outcomes – outcomes that constantly change based on observation, perspective and the current weather forecast
  8. Rigid Outcomes – outcomes that should be redefined when data, context and situation call for an intelligent adjustment but people get locked on course, even if they are heading for an open pit.
  9. Immeasurable Outcomes – outcomes based on fuzzy things, emotions or feelings instead of being evidenced-based.
  10. Passive Outcomes – from the “I hope this happens / works” camp even when the data screams otherwise (if there is any data at all).
  11. Aggressive Outcomes – the steam roller approach, ignoring the negative impact on people, organizations and anyone / anything else touched by the results of such outcomes.
  12. Timid Outcomes – leaving important things on the table, unexplored and unleveraged, because a lack of assertiveness, confidence or information.

In my early morning presentations this morning, I could have hammered and insulted everyone involved by actually pointing out who was guilty of one or more of these sins (myself included).

But great teams don’t need to be lectured – they know how to solve their own problems once they are pointed out.  The book Are Your Lights On?: How to Figure Out What the Problem Really Is, written over 20 years ago but still relevant, has some useful information on how to encourage intelligent people to solve their own problems.

Having set my team back on course towards a successful completion of the tasks at hand, I took a look at what is trending on mainstream and social media this morning based on social media’s “what’s trending” links.

Let’s see … in the midst of the Harvey Weinstein debacle, I see that Ellen DeGeneres lit up social media with this item.

@TheEllenShow: Happy birthday, @KatyPerry! It’s time to bring out the big balloons!

Sure it’s only in jest and we are hypersensitive about everything these days.  However, if a privileged Caucasian male (a certain President comes to mind) said this, Twitter would burn to the ground in indignation.

Consistency and fairness are important when we are addressing issues in our world, are they not?

Meanwhile, HBO severed ties with Mark Halperin over his own indiscretions and yet defended a comedy that they ran a few years ago that showed a child drinking from a penis-shaped water bottle. 

Apologies for the offensive picture but it is offered to make a point.

I also explored this in the post Duck Dynasty, Phil Robertson and Ignorance Run Rampant.

I see also that Hillary’s “The Election Was Stolen from Me” tour continues to trend highly and is either a form of therapy for her  (Hillary Clinton’s Book Tour Is a Dose of Much-Needed Therapy for Her Fans) or a source of anger (Fear and loathing on Hillary Clinton's grievance tour).

And finally, I see that the US Intelligence community continues to control the nation as President Trump acquiesces and allows certain JFK assassination reports to remain classified.

Not to be outdone, President Trump continues to stoke fears in many that we are all about to be wiped out in a mushroom cloud.  Whether that cloud is nuclear or ego-based is still being debated.

On the social media side, I see a lot of conspiracy rants and an invitation to determine what my porn star name would be or if an algorithm can guess my age based on my song interests.

There are many useful and important conversations happening in social media but items similar to the ones shown above are the things being fed to many people who consume what is put in front of them rather than choosing to selectively digest that which improves their lives and the lives of others.

It’s too bad that irrelevant and nonsensical drivel drown important things out and that such noise prevents many people from seeing clarity in their own personal or professional situations.

It would be entertaining to reexamine measurable outcomes of society-at-large as it pertains to social and mainstream media, politicians, business and the like.

I would but I have accepted the caveat that such analysis will unlikely move the masses who prefer to deflect attention away from their own worries, laziness, ignorance, apathy or sense of inadequacy (the latter often being untrue or unwarranted) by filling their mind with such distractions.

The Bottom Line

Clarity matters and often to obtain it, we need to create a gap between ourselves and the noise that prevents us from acquiring it.  Unfortunately, too many people are afraid of quiet, solitude and the chatter within their minds.

That’s too bad, because many people have great things aching to be revealed that could make a tremendous, positive difference on this planet.

Measurable outcomes matter and those who refuse to define and communicate them appropriately often bore and irritate others who get tired of hearing them moan about results desired but not assertively, appropriately created.

Consistency in addressing our world problems matters – we can’t be offended by what people say or do if we say or do similar things, somehow holding people to a higher standard that we refuse to hold ourselves to.

And what we fill our brain with matters in regards to the results we create for ourselves and others.

What do you fill your brain with?

I wonder if your answer and your actions express the same thing.

Does it even matter?

In service and servanthood – create a great day because merely having one is too passive an experience.

Harry

Monday, August 14, 2017

Divide and Conquer (Revisited)

Terrorism is a psychological warfare. Terrorists (and politicians) try to manipulate us and change our behavior by creating fear, uncertainty, and division in society. - Patrick J. Kennedy (politician reference added)

He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

The #1206 “fiction” series continues (a variant on an earlier post) …


The coffee shop was busy as it always was, with its typical mix of soccer moms, businessmen and little kids doing what they liked to do in coffee shops.

In a private corner of the coffee shop, two men, overdressed for the hot weather in dark suits and white shirts, quietly observed the activity all around them.

Finally one of them cleared his throat and said tersely but quietly, “It was a lot easier than we anticipated, wasn’t it?”

The other looked at his companion and nodded, saying nothing.

“After all”, the first man continued, “Who would have thought that they could have been manipulated this easily?  It was almost like playing a game.”

The second man looked at him with a frown.  “Do you think it was that easy?”, he asked gruffly.  “Coming up with a list of topics that we knew would resonate with different elements of society was not easy”.

Still, as he thought about it, it was pretty easy. 

Things like creating the United Nations, charge it with maintaining peace and well-being on the planet and then encouraging it to do nothing while having it incessantly make announcements about what they intended to do.

Things like feeding different nations with the knowledge to create weapons of mass destruction and then feeding other countries with enough knowledge to be suspicious of them.

Things like getting everyone wound up about climate change and then introducing enough evidence on both sides of the argument to confuse everyone.

Things like creating structured religion to guide people morally and then have the leadership of some of the same organizations become the largest violators of those principles.

Then there was the idea of terrorism, keeping everyone unsteady on their feet, leading to the brilliant wars in the Middle East and the subsequent economic strain around the world.

The pro gay / anti gay / gender identity debate was tossed in for fun at the last minute at the suggestion of a team member who wanted to see how easily people could be manipulated in light of all the other events already occurring all around them.

Social media was also having its effect, enabling a small minority of people, including their own agents of misinformation, to convey strong messages and evoke strong, polarizing emotions in large groups of followers while lowering the mental resistance of the majority.

There were more things in play to confuse the people than he could even keep up with.

And now people were divided, not just on one issue but each on a multitude of issues, strongly agreeing with some people on some issues while vehemently opposing the same people on others.

A 2000-year plan was nearing its climatic end and the people were almost ready.

One pillar of strength remained that had to be neutralized.

As he thought about the final stages of their plan, he had a momentary thought that perhaps things were going a little too easily.

“We are sure that the divisiveness over politics in the United States was not created by us?”, he asked his colleague.

The first man chuckled and replied, “Don’t I wish?  They are so confused now that they created this one on their own without any help on our part.  Although I have to admit that I would have been proud if it had been my idea.”

The second man grunted and was silent again.  He didn’t like things happening that they hadn’t specifically orchestrated.

The first man, sensing that his partner was over analyzing again, continued his thought.

“The laws we need are in place.  People are confused and fighting for survival.  The separation by class, race, gender identity, financial standing and religious belief is complete.  The Department of Homeland Security ordered 450 million rounds of armor piercing ammunition a few years ago for domestic use and military rehearsals demonstrate that they are in the final preparation stages to combat domestic unrest.  Citizens believe that their President has checked out, is inept, is a racist or is unfeeling towards their plight.  I think this demonstrates that the leadership and the people are in the final place of confusion and imbalance that we need them to be in.”

The second nodded, pursing his lips.

“It is curious”, he said to no one in particular, “that the people of this planet who excel in the concept of divide and conquer to oppress others don’t notice when the same principles are being used against them.”

“Curious indeed”, replied the first, “but useful.”

The second man nodded again as they both resumed their observation of the coffee shop in silence.

To be continued.


© 2017 – Harry Tucker – All Rights Reserved

Blog Post Background / Supporting Data

Watching two African-American men tear each other apart today over who was “more black” as they argued over President Trump’s reaction to the act of hatred in Charlottesville broke my heart and reminded me of an older blog post which I repost here with some minor modifications.

Instead of being united against racism, they were allowing the evil tool of racism to divide them, keeping the attention on them and not on the people where the energetic conversations should be directed.

United we stand.

Divided we fall.

Are we focused on uniting against that which undermines us or are we so distracted by other things that we allow divisions and the architects of those divisions to tear us apart?

Someone stands to benefit from such division.

Who do you think that is?

How important is it to find out and neutralize their intentions before they neutralize a nation … or a planet?

How important is it that we relearn how to talk (even passionately) and even more, to listen?

How important is it that we focus more on what unites us instead of what separates us?

I guess it depends on what kind of future you want for you, your children, your partner, your loved ones, your friends, your country and the world.

What kind of future do you want?

It doesn’t create itself, you know.

The world is waiting for you.

What are you waiting for?

Series Origin

This series, a departure from my usual musings, is inspired as a result of conversations with former senior advisors to multiple Presidents of the United States, senior officers in the US Military and other interesting folks as well as my own professional background as a Wall St. / Fortune 25 strategy advisor and large-scale technology architect.

While this musing is just “fiction” (note the quotes) and a departure from my musings on technology, strategy, politics and society, as a strategy guy, I do everything for a reason and with a measurable outcome in mind. :-)

This “fictional” musing is a continuation of the #1206 series noted here.

Thursday, August 10, 2017

Kim Jong-Trump

There is a fine balance between paranoia and preparedness.  Understanding the difference can make all the difference. – Harry Tucker

A guest post by Gwynne Dyer, author, historian and independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries.


“I’m not saying we wouldn’t get our hair mussed, Mr President, but I do say not more than ten or twenty million dead, depending on the breaks.” So said General ‘Buck’ Turgidson, urging the US president to carry out a nuclear first strike, in Stanley Kubrick’s 1963 film ‘Dr Strangelove: or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.’

But nobody in Kubrick’s movie talked like Kim Jong-un (“American bastards would be not very happy with this gift sent on the July 4 anniversary,” he crowed, celebrating North Korea’s first successful test of an ICBM). They didn’t talk like Donald Trump either (“North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen.”)

Kubrick’s film came out the year after the Cuban missile crisis, when the world went to the brink of nuclear war after the Soviet Union put nuclear missiles into Cuba to deter an American invasion. It was a terrifying time, but neither US President John F. Kennedy nor the Soviet leaders used violent language. They stayed calm, and carefully backed away from the brink.

So Kubrick’s fictional leaders had to stay sane too; only his generals and civilian strategic ‘experts’ were crazy. Anything else would have been too implausible even for a wild satire like ‘Strangelove’. Whereas now we live in different times.

Trump may not understand what his own words mean, but he is threatening to attack North Korea if it makes any more threats to the United States. That’s certainly how it will be translated into Korean. And Pyongyang will assume that the US attack will be nuclear, since it would be even crazier to attack a nuclear-armed country like North Korea using only conventional weapons.

Maybe the American and North Korean leaders are just two playground bullies yelling at each other, but even in their more grown-up advisers it sets up the the train of thought best described by strategic theorist Thomas Schelling: “He thinks we think he’ll attack; so he thinks we shall; so he will, so we must.” This is how people can talk themselves into launching a ‘pre-emptive’ or ‘preventive’ nuclear attack.

Is this where the world finds itself at the moment? ‘Fraid so. And although a nuclear war with North Korea at this point wouldn’t even muss America’s hair – the few North Korean ICBMs would probably go astray or be shot down before they reached the US – it could kill many millions of Koreans on both sides of the border.

A million or so Japanese might die as well (that would depend on the fallout), and a few tens of thousands of US soldiers in western Pacific bases (from targeted strikes). Indeed, as the scale of the potential disaster comes home to North Korean strategists, you can see them start to play with the idea of a “limited nuclear war.”

North Korean planners have announced that they are “carefully examining” a plan for a missile attack on the big US base on Guam. In that way they could “signal their resolve” in a crisis by only hitting one isolated American military target. Their hope would be that such a limited attack would not unleash an all-out US nuclear counter-attack that would level North Korea.

‘Limited’ nuclear war typically becomes a favourite topic whenever strategists realise that using their cherished nuclear weapons any other way means unimaginable levels of death and destruction. It has never been credible, because it assumes that people will remain severely rational and unemotional while under attack by nuclear weapons.

Thinking about limited nuclear war, while unrealistic, is evidence that the planners are starting to get really scared about an all-out nuclear war, which is just what you want them to be. Nevertheless, we are entering a particularly dangerous phase of the process, not least because the other two major nuclear powers in the world, China and Russia, both have land borders with North Korea. And neither of them loves or trusts the United States.

What “process” are we talking about here? The process of coming to an accommodation that lets North Korea keep a nuclear deterrent, while reassuring it that it will never have to use those weapons. Because that’s what these North Korean missiles and nuclear warheads are about: deterring an American attack aimed at changing the regime.

They couldn’t be about anything else. North Korea can never have enough missiles to attack the US or its local allies and survive: it would be national suicide. But it can have enough of them to carry out a “revenge from the grave” and impose unacceptable losses on the US if it attacks North Korea. Deterrence, as usual, is the name of the game.

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson briefly said that the US was not seeking to change the North Korean regime last week, although he was almost immediately contradicted by President Trump. In the long run, however, that is the unpalatable but acceptable way out of this crisis. In fact, there is no other way out.


A guest post by Gwynne Dyer, author, historian and independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries.  Reproduced with permission from the author.

Monday, July 31, 2017

Reservoir Dogs in the White House

The first panacea for a mismanaged nation is inflation of the currency; the second is war. Both bring a temporary prosperity; both bring a permanent ruin. But both are the refuge of political and economic opportunists. - Ernest Hemingway

A guest post by Gwynne Dyer, an independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries.


Anthony Zurcher, the BBC’s North America correspondent, nailed it in a report on 27 July. “Where Abraham Lincoln had his famous ‘team of rivals’ in his administration, this is something different,” Zurcher wrote. “Trump White House seems more akin to the final scene in Reservoir Dogs, where everyone is yelling and pointing a gun at someone else, and there's a good chance no one is going to come out unscathed.”

Several walking wounded have limped out of the White House since then, including ex-Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, but nobody would call them unscathed. And in has come Anthony Scaramucci, the new communications director, who appears to have escaped from the same Quentin Tarantino movie. Maybe Steve Buscemi as Mr. Pink.

Fun fact: Scaramuccia (literally "little skirmisher"), also known as Scaramouche, is a stock character of the Italian commedia dell'arte. He combines the roles of a clownish servant and a masked assassin carrying out his master’s will. He often ends up decapitated.

Things are falling apart in the White House much faster than even the keenest observers of Donald Trump’s behaviour would have predicted, and the important part is not the dysfunction. The United States would work just fine – in fact, rather better – if Trump never managed to turn his tweets into reality. What matters is that he is cutting his links with the Republican Party.

Trump was never a real Republican. As a genuine populist, he is ideology-free. If Barack Obama had fallen under a bus and Trump had chosen to run for the presidency in 2008, he could just as easily have sought the Democratic nomination.

Senior Republicans knew this, and they tried quite hard to stop him from winning the Republican nomination last year. After that they were stuck with him, and he did win the White House for them, so they have been in an uncomfortable partnership ever since. That is now coming to an end.

Part of the unwritten deal was that establishment Republicans get senior roles in the Trump White House. Reince Priebus, dismissed last Friday, was the most important of those people. He followed deputy chief of staff Katie Walsh, communications director Mike Dubke, press secretary Sean Spicer and press aide Michael Short, all of whom had already been pushed out.

What’s left are alt-right white nationalists like Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller, New Yorkers with Democratic leanings like Anthony Scaramucci, Jared Kushner, Dina Powell and Gary Cohn, Trump family members (Donald Jr and Ivanka), ex-businessmen like foreign secretary Rex Tillerson (who may be about to quit), and a triumvirate of generals in high civilian office.

This is a recipe for paralysis, but who cares? Did you really want a White House team that enabled Donald Trump to impose his will (or rather, his whims) on the United States and, to some extent, on the world? Well, no, and neither do senior Republicans – but they do care very much about controlling the White House.

Republicans who think long-term are well aware that the changing demography of the US population is eating away at their core vote. This may be their last chance, with control of both Houses of Congress and (at least in theory) of the presidency, to reshape their image and their policies in ways that will appeal to at least some of the emerging minorities.

They can’t do that if they don’t control the White House, and the only way they could regain control there is for Trump to go and Vice-President Mike Pence (a real Republican) to take over. A successful impeachment could accomplish that.

It would be very hard to engineer such a thing without splitting the Republican Party, even if the current FBI investigation comes up with damning evidence of Trump’s ties with Russia. Nevertheless, the likelihood of an impeachment is rising from almost zero to something quite a bit higher.

It would be a big gamble. The Republicans in Congress couldn’t really get Trump out before November 2018, and the turbulence of an impeachment might cost them their control of Congress in the mid-term elections. In an ideal outcome, however, it would give the Republicans time to go into the the 2020 election with President Pence in charge at the White House and some solid legislative achievements under their belts.

What would Trump do if he faced impeachment? Maybe he would do a kind of plea bargain and resign, but that would be quite out of character. His instinct would be to fight, and he fights mainly by creating diversions. The best diversion is a war, but against whom?

Even Trump would have trouble selling a war against Iran to the American public. Despite all the propaganda, they don’t really feel threatened by Iran. Whereas North Korea says and does things provocative enough to let Trump make a (flimsy) case for attacking it.

If he thought his presidency was at stake, he certainly would.


A guest post by Gwynne Dyer, an independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries.  Reproduced with permission from the author.

Monday, June 5, 2017

Why I’ll Never Accept Your Apology

Right actions in the future are the best apologies for bad actions in the past. - Tryon Edwards

The only correct actions are those that demand no explanation and no apology. - Red Auerbach

Mainstream and social media (is there even a difference anymore?), ever-hungry for blood, battery, humiliation and sensationalism, continue to carry news about Kathy Griffin’s act of stupidity in posing with a replica of the severed head of the POTUS.

Much has been made of her apology-turned-attack, where she has tried to turn an ignorant act into an act of self-defense, claiming she is the victim from the backlash when the original act itself has no excuse.  Unfortunately, failure to recognize cause-and-effect has doomed many a career.

Many people have asked my opinion on the matter because of what they believe to be my curious stand on apologies.

I never accept apologies.

Over-sensitive people are often quick to criticize me for this but here is how I look at apologies.

Rule 1 – The Good Person

If you are a good person and you have done wrong by me with an honest mistake, then you have demonstrated your imperfection as a human being.  As an imperfect human being myself, I also make mistakes so who am I to judge you for making one with me.  For this reason, apologies are not necessary in such situations.  Many relationships have been saved because of this approach.

Rule 2 – The Bad Person

If you are a bad person who got caught committing a heinous act and you are apologizing merely because you got caught, then likely the apology carries little if any weight (and likely doesn’t prevent similar incidents from happening again).  If the apology carries little if any weight, then it is also unnecessary since it’s either a time-waster, an insult or a set-up to commit similar acts in the future.  Much abuse has been avoided because of this approach.

Rule 3 – The Rare “Come-To-Jesus” Person

Very rarely, the bad person committing a heinous act has an epiphany, realizes where they have gone wrong and makes an authentic commitment to doing better.  While people claim we should always accept any apology from anyone for any level of miscreant behavior on the off-chance that they will turn the corner, those same people haven’t studied history or human behavior to see the likelihood of such things occurring. While there are some success stories, a lot of people get used and abused repeatedly for this belief.

Rule 4 – Past Behavior Demonstrates Apology Authenticity

If you really want to know how authentic someone’s apology is, examine how they have been living their Life up to the moment the act requiring apology occurred.  Past performance often predicts future behavior and provides deep insight into the reason and motivation for an apology.  It will help you identify a good person, a person having an epiphany or someone who interprets you as an idiot to be played.

Too Harsh?

Many people who do not know me think that this is too cut-and-dried, too objective, too cold and the like.  Later, I have to listen to them complain how someone keeps hurting them over and over.

The reality is that I don’t judge people because I accept that good people make honest mistakes and that bad people who make poor choices will eventually have to account to “Someone” for their deeds.  I don’t have the time, the interest, the moral authority or the level of perfection required to judge them and so if I don’t judge them, there is nothing that requires an apology from them either.

The Bottom Line – Our Actions Reveal Our Authenticity

While intentions are wonderful and words are easily produced for any situation, the reality is that our actions reveal the dialogue taking place in our brain and often speak so loudly that others can’t hear what we are saying.

When I see someone like Griffin with her latest stunt, or her previous stunt where she pretended to give Anderson Cooper oral sex on live TV during the 2013 New Year’s Eve Countdown, or when someone makes a derogatory comment about women, people of faith, gender choice, people of other nationalities, etc. and then quickly apologizes, they are usually thinking about their career and the ramifications of being caught.  Rarely do they believe that the act itself was wrong.  For them, the only thing that was wrong was being exposed.

There is a deeper issue when people commit heinous acts that require an apology. The fact is that they wouldn’t have committed the act if it weren’t already a seed in their mind.

Do you know why I could never insult an LGBTQ person, a person from another nationality, a person of a different faith, an indigenous person, a woman, a minority or pose in a photo pretending to hold the severed head of the POTUS?

It’s because such things don’t exist in my mind and if they are not in my mind, you won’t see them in my words or my actions either.  If heinous thoughts are not in one’s mind, then one is less likely to experience the overused “lapse of judgment”, which in reality is less a lapse and more an x-ray into someone’s mind.

For those who keep surprising, disappointing and offending us and then promptly asking for (or demanding) forgiveness, they have revealed what is in their mind and having done so, it is up to us to decide how to interact with them and respond to them. In those situations, only we are to blame if we continue to be surprised, disappointed or angered by their actions.

As for the good people in our lives, they have made a mistake.

Perhaps it is one of many.

But are we so perfect that we haven’t any mistakes either?

Our actions, past and future, matter much more than trite, perfunctory apologies or fake ones meant to relieve us of the responsibility of acting like a proper human being.

Remember that the next time someone begs for forgiveness from you.

Or you beg for it from someone else.

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

Harry

Addendum - Who is the Injured Party?

Within minutes of this post coming out, someone wrote me and condemned me, saying that by refusing an apology, I was denying someone the right to feel better about a situation.  When I replied that I thought the purpose of the apology was more to heal the injured and not just to remove the guilt, they never replied.  I guess they wanted an apology from me and were disappointed to not receive one.

Related Posts:

Monday, January 30, 2017

After the Candlelight Vigils and Demonstrations … Then What?

Action expresses priorities. - Mahatma Gandhi

Take time to deliberate; but when the time for action arrives, stop thinking and go in. - Andrew Jackson

Some years ago, a former colleague of mine set up a 10km walkathon to show women in Africa that we in the west felt their pain when it came to the fact that they had to walk 10km to get clean water.

I thought this was a great cause and so I asked what the walkathon was producing.  Was it raising money to drill a well closer to a village so that women wouldn’t have to walk as far to get clean water?  Was it raising awareness so that other people would be inspired to take action to help people get better access to clean water?

“Nope”, the coordinator replied proudly, “The sole purpose is so that the women in that village know that we stand in support of their struggle.”

“Ok”, I responded, “but you are only promoting this on Facebook with no funds raised, no large-scale media attention or anything else.  So you are counting on these women in a remote village in the most destitute, desolate part of Africa to:

1. Have electricity

2. Have Internet access

3. Have a Facebook account

4. Know that you are doing this and to go to the right place in Facebook at the right time to witness your statement of camaraderie

5. Care what an overly well-fed white guy in Canada does once to feel good, after which he climbs back into his SUV, goes home and gorges himself on more food in one meal than they will see in a week.”

Meanwhile, the women in Africa still need to walk the same distance to obtain clean water.

“But I will feel good about it”, was his response.

Well, if that’s all there is to making a difference in the world, then I have a recommendation:

Let’s all take 5 minutes tomorrow to think good thoughts or say a prayer for everyone, congratulate ourselves and God for optimizing our contribution to the world and then go about living a life focused on our own needs instead of actually fixing the things around us.

Let’s not forget to tell everyone else about how good it felt also, preferably in an awesome display of social media prowess.

Or if that’s too much effort:

Spread some feel-good or feel-bad stuff on social media (truth, respect and relevance don’t matter) from the safety of a coffee shop (or perhaps while watching the Kardashians or some other mindless thing on TV), trash people whose opinions are different than yours, “Like” a bunch of things that resonate with your personal biases and then spend the rest of the day bragging about it.

Both are equally effective techniques, aren’t they?

They are but not in the way you would like to believe.

Meanwhile …

Tonight, Calgary and other cities across Canada will be having candlelight vigils to remember the people massacred in the mosque in Quebec City on January 29, 2017.

Throughout America, people are protesting their President on the streets and spreading hysteria through social media, throwing facts, truths, collaboration, respect and an eye towards solutions out the window in an attempt to create a viral contagion of their own fear, ignorance, hatred or personal agenda. (Note: This is not to suggest that President Trump hasn't done his own share of things out of potential fear or ignorance. However, meeting fear or ignorance with same plays to the people who enjoy such tactics and NO ONE wins from the escalation that ensues).

But what will these events really produce?

Will they stop future violence?

Will they somehow cause their President to be removed from office or cause him to suddenly start seeing their way as “the right way”?

Hardly.

We are emotional beings and it is normal, natural (and sometimes healthy) to express these emotions.

However, when the expressions of grief, love, sharing, caring and outrage have been expressed, it’s time to ask what we need to do next to prevent a repeat of whatever it is we are assembling for.

Because if we are unwilling to take truth-based, respectful, goal-inspired, collaborative action, then we must be prepared to fill our days with more vigils and demonstrations as well as more angst, anger, worry and anxiety (or comfort sharing, even though such sharing will not prevent future acts of hatred).

Because emotion expressed without action taken doesn’t change reality.

Reality couldn’t care less about what you think or want.

It is created by what you do (or not do).

The Bottom Line

John F Kennedy once said, “There are risks and costs to action. But they are far less than the long range risks of comfortable inaction.”

Too many people today allow their feelings and opinions to be defined by blind, lazy, hateful sharing on social medial designed to prey upon their emotions and to manipulate them into acting on behalf of the needs and intentions of others or to diminish them, convincing them that they can’t make a difference.

Politicians also exploit such emotional tactics to recruit their minions to do their dirty work for them while the politicians smugly wait on the sidelines and harvest the result.

Meanwhile, the change that is needed remains unrealized, waiting for more people with courage to do more than give lip service to what they believe is important in standing up to ignorance, intimidation, hatred and lies with a focus on truly creating a better world.

Explore whether the inaction or hate-filled sharing of others has made a demonstrable difference and you will discover that despite all their efforts, the things that they are complaining about continue unabated (or grow in intensity,frequency and impact).  If you want specific examples, explore what things like Occupy Wall Street really accomplished.

By their example, you will discover what you need to do to really make a difference in the world.

Otherwise you are just offering lip service as others do.

And of all the shortages we have in the world, lip service is not one of them.

If you don’t have the courage to take positive action, if your words don’t inspire others to take positive action or if you prefer to spread hatred and negativity, then you are in for a long, painful, frustrating experience on Earth.

And if all you have to offer is negativity, intimidation and problem creation, it could be argued that you are contributing to what is wrong on this planet instead of the unlimited potential that collaborative, respectful, fact-filled, compassionate, passionate human beings can create.

Which group of people do you wish to belong to – the problem creators or the solution creators?

Be sure to choose wisely (as measured by your actions), otherwise your time spent on Earth not only doesn’t live up to your potential and responsibility but it will be pretty miserable also.

Is that the way you really want to live?

Is this the example you would like to establish for your children, your family, your colleagues and your friends?

Are you sure?

It’s fine to initially express emotion but then ask yourself what your actions and not your mouth (or the dark recesses of your brain)  have to say about making a measurable difference.

Create a great day because merely having one is too passive an experience and waiting for someone else to create it is too frustrating, anxiety-ridden and random in manifestation.

If you need a boost of courage, there are others who are waiting to help you.

They and the world are waiting for you.

What are you waiting for?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Related Posts:


Addendum – Sad Realities of Respect and Results

It is an unfortunate reality that many people do not want respectful dialog and get quite upset when someone suggests that their actions of anger and hatred do not produce positive results.  For some, the mere request for respectful, fact-filled dialog produce hateful responses as the one that occurred as a comment in the blog post Facts – What a Pain in the You-Know-What.

In an interaction I had with a long-time friend a couple of weeks ago, he kept insisting on calling people he didn’t like “a moron” under the guise of demanding respectful dialog and solutions.  In my requests of him to explain how his children would view his behavior, whether or not such behavior provided a good role model for them and how he would respond if people kept calling him a moron, he kept responding with “what Donald Trump would do and what kind of role model Donald Trump is”.  Multiple requests to ignore what Donald Trump would do and to reply with what he would do and what kind of role model he offers to his kids were repeatedly deflected by himself and his colleagues.

If we wish to see change, we must be the change we wish to see (Gandhi).  Unfortunately, too many are too blind to see beyond their own hypocrisy and lack of authenticity.

Thursday, January 19, 2017

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.


Monday, January 9, 2017

Trump, WikiLeaks and Russia

A guest post by Gwynne Dyer, an independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries.


When a Fox News reporter asked Donald Trump about WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange back in 2010, just after Assange had released a huge cache of secret US diplomatic cables, the reality TV star had no doubts: “I think it's disgraceful, I think there should be like the death penalty or something.”

Circumstances change, however, and smart people with big brains know when it’s time to switch sides.  It was WikilLeaks, once again, that revealed the hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee that did such damage to Hillary Clinton’s campaign last summer. But Trump now readily accepts Assange’s word that he didn’t get those emails from the Russians.

Trump has been having a problem with the main US intelligence agencies, which unanimously insist that the Russians did indeed hack the DNC’s emails, and that they passed them to WikiLeaks (through an intermediary) in order to damage Clinton’s presidential election campaign. “Putin and the Russian government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump,” as the joint intelligence report put it.

So Trump was very happy to be able to reply (in a tweet, of course) that “Assange... said Russians did not give him the info!” After all, what motive could Assange have for lying about it?

Well, there is the fact that Assange has been living in one room in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for the past four years, in order to avoid being extradited to the United States on espionage charges that could get him up to 45 years in prison. Donald Trump is the one person who could make all that trouble go away, once he becomes the president, so doing him a favour now might be a wise move on Assange’s part.

Assange would not even have to lie outright, because the Russians would obviously never give him the emails directly. There would have to be one or more persons in between, because WikiLeaks is not in the business of taking leaks from governments. Assange might have strong suspicions about who originally hacked the DNC, but he did not necessarily go all out to confirm them.

Moreover, as Trump points out, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation  are the same organisations that cooked up the evidence for Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction” so that President George W. Bush could invade Iraq.

Nevertheless, the US intelligence agencies are probably right to blame their Russian counterparts for the hacks that caused the Clinton campaign such problems. President Vladimir Putin has been quite open about preferring Trump to Clinton, and the leaks definitely gave a boost to Trump’s election campaign in late July and August.

On the other hand, that happened so long before the actual vote in November that it’s impossible to say if it had any effect on the outcome.

The event that probably did give Trump his very narrow margin of victory (100,000 votes spread between three key swing states) was FBI director James Comey’s bizarre decision to declare that Hillary Clinton was facing another investigation only eleven days before the vote.

It’s all might-have-beens, and the only reason it has become controversial is Trump’s extremely thin skin. He is questioning the intelligence services’ conclusions about Russian interference because he believes (wrongly) that they undermine the validity of his election victory. But his strong sympathy for the Russian position, though driven by perceived personal interests, is a refreshing break from the usual Washington paranoia.

He said it himself (in another tweet): “Having a good relationship with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing. Only stupid people or fools would think that it is bad. We have enough problems around the world without yet another one.”

This is a perfectly reasonable statement. Trump’s views on China give cause for alarm, but his desire for a reconciliation with Russia makes more sense than the reflex hostility that both Hillary Clinton and the US intelligence services bring to the relationship. Vladimir Putin is a player, and sometimes he plays rough, but his recent meddling in the American election is far less than the massive US interference in Russian elections in the 1990s.

In seeking a rapprochement with Moscow, Trump should not make the mistake of accepting Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea. Changing borders by force (even if most of the local population approves of it) has been banned by international law for more than half a century, and we should not start making exceptions to that rule now.

But while the United States never accepted the old Soviet Union’s illegal annexation of the Baltic states in 1940, it did not let that stand in the way of improving the US-Soviet relationship as the Cold War drew to an end.

There is much that the United States and Russia could usefully cooperate on now, starting with putting an end to the war in Syria. On this issue, at least, Trump is right and Obama, Clinton and the spooks are wrong.


A guest post by Gwynne Dyer, an independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries.  Reproduced with permission from the author.

Monday, November 21, 2016

The US Election–A Warning For America

The past speaks to us in a thousand voices, warning and comforting, animating and stirring to action. - Felix Adler

If you must hold yourself up to your children as an object lesson, hold yourself up as a warning and not as an example. - George Bernard Shaw

I remember as a kid taking high school physics that I was fascinated by vector analysis, the notion of netting out multiple forces with different directions and vector quantities such as displacement, velocity, force and acceleration to find out what ultimate direction and other vector quantities an object being acted upon by these forces would exhibit.  (Who knows – maybe they teach this in kindergarten now)

And now as I watch people continue to triumph or melt down down over the election result, my memories turn back to my old physics days, about how a result is the net effect of many of forces coming to bear at a single place and point in time.

But first a background story that caused my old physics days to come to mind.

A long-time friend of more than 25 years recently said goodbye to me because he couldn’t live with the notion that people couldn’t have differences of opinion.

He and I were both immigrants to America.

We both found significant success in America.

But here we diverged a little.

I embraced the nation, being grateful every day that it accepted me as one of its own and that I had equal opportunity to thrive and seize success if I wanted it.  When the Star Spangled Banner would play at an event, my eyes would tear up in gratitude to be afforded such opportunity that few in the world dared to hope for.

The nation wasn’t perfect but there were many places in the world that were MUCH worse.

Our differences of opinion were significant although not immediately apparent to me until recently.

I believe a nation’s flag is sacred and while its protection and respectful treatment is not enshrined under law, I believe that to smear the flag is the ultimate insult to a nation.

He believes that burning the flag is a useful form of protest (although he can’t explain how or why).

I believe that our armed forces, law enforcement and first responders in general need to be honored every day for the incredible, unselfish sacrifices they make so that we can go about our business and reach for our dreams.

He believes that the armed forces are an embarrassing example of a primal, degenerate nature that don’t deserve our respect and therefore should not be honored in any way.

I believe in the notion that if we spread any kind of information, it should be authenticated, validated, shared respectfully and built around making the world a better place.

He believes that any information is useful, including false or misleading information, if it accomplishes the objective.  He also believes that if this hurts people, then so be it – the ends justify the means.

We have many differences as is usually healthy amongst friends.

However, I drew the line recently when he began promoting pro-hatred rhetoric proven to be lies because he was so disappointed that Hillary Clinton had lost.  All was fair in terms of overthrowing the hateful person (in his eyes) that had become the President-elect.

“This man”, he said through his actions, “is an embarrassment to morals and ethics in America.  Look at how he treats others including ……” and he listed off a pile of stories that have already been established to not be true.

Feeling a little weary of this series of lectures, I asked him “If you believe so strongly about morals and ethics, why are you cheating on your wife?”

What followed was a blistering attack against me followed by the ever mature, ever useful (not) unfriending.

I am not judging him for cheating on his wife with someone much younger.

When my end-of-days arrives, I will have many things to atone for in my own Life as is true for most of us.

But what I do take umbrage over is when someone lectures others on morals, values and character while reserving the right to be none of the things they expect of others.

And that’s when I got to thinking about vectors in high school physics.

As I have noted in older blog posts:

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.

Many, many complementary and opposing forces, created over generations, have come together to create the system we have now and the President we have elected.

If we don’t like the election process that was used, the process as it was executed (including by the media and in social media) and the result that it produced, it behooves us to look at the many forces that went into creating and using all three. 

When an object (or a President) is propelled in a certain direction in a certain way, it is not merely the actions of the object but the forces (or vector quantities) in place at that moment that propel the object.

The forces aren’t created spontaneously or from thin air.

They come from our actions.

Too often the things we claim to not like are merely the symptoms of a more complex problem or are projections based on our own biases and fears.  Knowing the difference between targeting the core issue versus the symptoms means the difference between finding a solution or immersing one’s self in insanity or an endless litany of complaining and/or feelings of victimhood.

The President-elect is not the problem.

We are.

The Bottom Line

The President-elect is the net effect of the thoughts, words and actions of all of us, both present and in our past.  It’s not only what we do but what we promote or condone in others – the end result being the net effect of what we do and what we allow over time.

If don’t like how he was created or what he is, we need to look less at him and more into the forces that have created him and propelled him into the position that he is in.

Such an analysis, while complex, difficult, painful and potentially embarrassing, will produce far more results than chanting slogans of hurt feelings in the streets of America or constantly sharing in social media how “I can’t stop crying” or “I’m leaving America”.

When we become cognizant of our thoughts, words and deeds, it occurs to us that the enemy may not be the person or process we don’t like.

It may be ourselves.

And for this reason, perhaps when we seek a better world without, that we begin by creating a better world within and in doing so, we enable our actions, not our desires, dreams or hypocritical standards, to create the world we believe we are capable of producing and that we claim to be entitled to.

We will always create the world we deserve, in business, in politics and in Life.

But a better world starts with what we believe we or the people around us deserve and then we take actions to create that which others deserve.

What do you and the people around you deserve?

Are you / they experiencing what you believe you / they deserve?

Is there a gap and if so, what are you doing about it?

If there is no gap, how do you know?

Be the change you wish to see while there is still time to create it

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Thursday, November 10, 2016

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.