Newfoundland–Problem Solving and Accepting Basic Realities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some years later ….

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that’s just for starters.

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

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

They range from the intelligent to the idiot …

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Most would not. 

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

Unlikely.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The doctor smiles.

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

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

The Bottom Line

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

The “Honorable Members” of the Newfoundland and Labrador Government

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the most part.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shouldn’t it?

The Bottom Line

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where does it end?

With us, of course.

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

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

Doing the latter doesn’t change anything.

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

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

Do you?

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

In service and servanthood,

Harry

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

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

---

Addendum – The Initial Reaction – July 20, 2017

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

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

Awkward.

The two women provided curious responses also.

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

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

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

All good.

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

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

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

Neither is willing to take a public stand against it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Such thinking is dangerous, destructive and regressive.

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

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

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

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

How indeed?

---

Closing Thoughts (almost - I changed my mind later)

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

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

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

Perhaps someone smarter than I am can enlighten me.

Perhaps.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So where is the surprise regarding any of this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It reminds me of this story:

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

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

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

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

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

So … who wants to bell the cat?

Things That I Wonder About

Many ideas grow better when transplanted into another mind than the one where they sprang up. – Oliver Wendell Holmes

Individually, we are one drop. Together, we are an ocean. – Ryunosuke Satoro

In between selling a large tech company and starting up a Foundation that will “help NPO’s “do good better” through fact-based decision-making and evidence-based outcome assessments” (quoting friend and colleague, Doug P.), I often have other distractions that cross my mind that I feel merit some attention.

As a long-time Wall St. strategy guy, unsolved problems are always a conundrum for me, especially when the problems are significant in impact and are far / wide reaching in society.  Problems in society affect us all at some point, even if we don’t feel the affect directly (or believe we don’t).

However, I can’t tackle all these thoughts, nor should I (no individual is tagged as the “savior” of the world).  That being said, they are worthy of thought and action and so, with the encouragement of very nice colleagues who kindly never lose patience with me when I muse about other concerns in the world, I’m going to occasionally toss some ideas out with the idea that someone else may feel inspired to own some of them.

This is not a typical blog post for me such as can be found in the #1206 series, the Abigail / Gabriel series or any general post.  It is a grab bag of thoughts that pass through my brain in the course of leading a busy Life.

If you want to own one, I would be glad to help!

A subset of my random thoughts this week:

1. How is it that the Newfoundland and Labrador Government can have as its top bureaucrat, Bern Coffey, who, while leading the bureaucratic corps of the Government, was also a lawyer representing a client who was suing a Crown Corporation of the same Government and a few years before, while a clerk of the Government Executive council, led a case against a Government health authority (details here and here)?  While officials claim they are “just finding out”, the truth is that they knew for a while.  Conflict of interest, anyone?
2. By the same token, how is it that Tzeporah Berman can serve as a member of the Alberta Government Oil and Gas advisory team while at the same time, receive compensation for campaigning AGAINST the oil and gas industry in Alberta (details here)?  Conflict of interest, round 2.
3. Premier Ball dismissed Coffey in the first scenario but Premier Notley refuses to dismiss Tzeporah in the second one.  When such appointments with obvious conflict-of-interest are knowingly made, what does this tell us about the leadership skills of the people in the respective situations?  Is it a reflection of poor execution, low intelligence, self-serving motives or an indifference to how things are perceived (or something else)?
4. Are apologies or “sharp corrective action” from politicians acceptable because we believe that someone recognized their own mistake and want it fixed or are we being played as politicians attempt to harvest political points while continuing their inappropriate behavior?  In my companies, you are fully supportive of the organization that pays you or you are not but if you are not, you work to make us better through compromise or you leave.  You can’t play for me and against me at the same time.  Why don’t we demand this of government?
5. How is it in the Newfoundland and Labrador government, a blind trust for a politician can be run by a politician’s husband, wife, daughter, son-in-law or lover?  There is nothing “arms-length” or “blind” about such a set-up.  Who do you think benefits from this arrangement?
6. How is it that Stephen Colbert can refer to the President of the United States as Vladimir Putin’s “cock holster” when a comment such as that, if directed at the previous President, would have required riot squads to be deployed (details here)?  Why is it that the “tolerant left” has no issue when insults are issued against the one that they despise but they are quick to demonstrate in the streets should there even be the possibility that one of their own might be insulted at some point in the future?  One must respect the Office of the President and if one disagrees with the President himself, Colbert’s approach is not the way to express it.  Respect earned is respect given.  Anything else leads to significant problems in society.
7. How is it that very few people care about emergency planning, regardless of the source / scale of the emergency?  Officials routinely warn of difficulties ahead, whether it be in the form of a cyber attack, a nuclear war, climate change-induced natural disasters and a plethora of other things and yet most people would be lucky if they could survive a minor inconvenience that lasted through a weekend.  We have all seen people panic-shop at supermarkets when a storm is forecast.  What if the “storm” came without warning.  I mused about this yesterday in the post Statistics: The Mathematical Theory of Ignorance.
8. How is it that US politicians can claim a triumph in the low unemployment rate when the vast majority of jobs created in recent years are part-time / low-paying jobs with little or no health benefit plans?  When more than 50% of American families have $1000 or less in the bank, over 48 million Americans are on food stamps and over 98 million Americans are not working at all, how can we champion a recovery that benefits a small minority of people?
9. Pursuant to the previous point, personal debt is growing and more than 50% of families have less than $1000 in the bank.  Where is personal freedom and empowerment for these people?
10. If people are happier than ever, why do we have a steady increase in the need for antidepressants?
11. The next time you are in Costco, a supermarket or other place filled with abundance, ask yourself when you last helped someone who couldn’t partake in such abundance.
12. It is estimated that we will work 80,000 hours in our lifetime.  1% of that (800 hours or 20 work-weeks) is a small amount to spend in planning our work Life but we don’t teach kids how to do it.  In fact, if I told someone when I was 20 that I was about to spend 5 months planning my career, I would be told I was insane (even though it’s such a small number in the grand scheme of things).  We teach kids phenomenally more than when I was in school and yet basic skills of Life strategy (including long and short term goal setting), financial strategy, respectful dialog when ideas are polar opposites and the like seem absent from the skill-set of many young people.  We seem to insist that they learn these things the hard way.  Why?  Is it because we don’t know how to either?
13. Many not-for-profits are phenomenally wasteful in how they spend their money and many people who work for them know how to steal from them as a profession but we don’t care.  Why?
14. How is it that people put little or no effort into the things that matter in society but will spend an amazing amount of time watching videos of cats, sharing pictures of their oatmeal or losing their minds over how their favorite TV series ends?

Do these things matter or am I just over-sensitive?

Should we care that these represent symptoms of a society that is not ticking over as well as claimed by politicians or do we ignore them, saving our complaints and intention for action only when we are directly affected as opposed to when our neighbor is being pummeled instead of us?

If they matter, what can we do about them?

The Bottom Line

I’m a big believer in sharing thoughts and encouraging people to dialog about things with an eye towards taking measurable action.  Good intentions and thoughts are worthless without measurable results.

However, we can’t own everything that comes before us, even when it impacts us deeply.  Some of us who work hard to make a difference in the world need others to share the responsibility, especially when many who put little into society want to reap the harvest that comes from a better world.

It’s time for more people to be concerned about society and where it’s going …

… while it’s still a going concern.

In service and servanthood,

Harry

PS:You will note that I didn't mention things like privacy, surveillance and the like.  I believe that that fight is over.  You needed to care 25 years ago to have made a difference in regards to that subject.  Do you see what waiting accomplishes?  This is also, as I noted, just a subset of the things that went through my mind this week in the 5% of my brain that I have left over from the projects that consume it.

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.

---

Newfoundland Politicians–A New Definition of Honorable Member

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

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

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think?

The Bottom Line

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

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

What do you think?

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

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

Because it takes action to fix things.

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

I think the Province deserves better.

I wonder what the People think.

In service and servantbood,

Harry

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

---

Newfoundland Government: Defying My Rituals of Optimism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is not my way.

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

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

“Coincidence?”, I wondered.

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

It is a place of unrivalled natural beauty.

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

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

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

Why is this?

Should this become the new slogan for the Province?

Hope: May not be warranted at this point.

Where Does One Begin?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I could ask these and many more questions.

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

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

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

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

The question is:

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

The Bottom Line

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

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

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

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

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

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

To those people, I apologize.

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

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

The former is much less painful.

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

If you disagree with me, spare me your opinions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’m not sure.

What do you think?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Addendum - Another Opinion

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

The article is here - Get Out If You Can.

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

---

Addendum 3 - Final Thoughts - April 28, 2016

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

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

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

---

When Social Media, Opinions and Politics Collide

Opinion is the medium between knowledge and ignorance. - Plato

Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. – Hippocrates

Ahhhhh, the #nlpoli (Newfoundland politics) hashtag has lit up once again as Newfoundlanders find their three favorite religions; social medial, sharing opinions and politics colliding or colluding (take your pick).

As a Newfoundlander myself, I don’t know of any culture that does it with as much passion as Newfoundlanders do, to their compliment as well as to their detriment, and for this reason, one has to be careful whenever venturing out into the final frontier that is sharing one’s opinion in that great Province.

A Progressive Conservative candidate in the upcoming provincial election, Tina Olivero, has now learned this full well although she should have been aware of the potential for complexity having lived in the Province a good part of her Life.  The CBC covers the controversy here - Tory candidate Tina Olivero draws Twitter ire after health comments.

In a small #nlpoli explosion, Ms. Olivero made some pretty disturbing claims this week regarding the power of positive thinking and mental wellness to potentially cure cancer, epilepsy and the like.  In a world where beating the tar out of people on social media has become a global sport, she was immediately beset upon by the Twitterverse with a cacophony of taunts and insults.

Premier Davis, when asked about her comments replied in typical politician fashion – that his cancer was cured by chemotherapy but that there are others who believe that a strong mental outlook can cure disease.  He then went on to make a correlation that veterans of wars died so that people like Ms. Olivero could share such opinions.

Personally, while I believe in the power of positive thinking to a certain degree, if I get very ill, I prefer the power of positive science accompanied by positive thinking (in that order).  Ms. Olivero had to know that expressing her controversial opinions would elicit a venomous response from people, both inside and outside of the medical field.  In particular, people who struggle with mental illness or who have survived cancer, are going through it or have loved ones going through it will no doubt be made to feel angry or insulted by such suggestions.  As someone who has overcome much myself, both by illness and by accident, I can only shake my head and hope that people don’t lose their money or their lives following such beliefs.

Ms. Olivero has also expressed to people in the past that she believes (or believed, I don’t know her current belief system) that she is one of ten prophets as identified in books about Urantia, an alleged new age concept where extraterrestrial forms are channelling positive news to people on Earth.

Are these things normal?

I don’t know – whose definition of normal do you wish to embrace?

I read the Bible daily.  For as many people who applaud me, there are an equal number (or more) who would condemn such “silly activities by an intelligent man”.

I believe that there may be a case to support the fact that extraterrestrials may have visited (or are visiting the earth).   There are many who would tell me that this is crazy also and are only too happy to tell me.

Again, I ask you – what do we define as normal?

The reality is that the beliefs she has expressed are her own opinions.  While they may not be evidenced-based and may in fact be potentially dangerous if one embraces them, most of us know enough about the world to not blindly follow them so why are we getting so venomous about them as if they have directly impacted us? 

Most of us know the difference between the range of opinions in the world that vary from the normal to the mentally ill or illegal, understanding when to agree, when to disagree, when to ignore them and when to report them to the authorities. Appropriate responses to opinions (including type and level of emotion expended) commensurate with the opinions themselves in large part show others who we are – many forget this and reveal their own challenges (or ignorance) in an effort to crush someone else (even if for the right reasons).

If I looked over the Twitterverse with an eye to finding what I perceive to be outrageous, insulting or downright insane opinions, I could spend the rest of my Life being insulted.  #nlpoli alone could keep me thus entertained forever, likely to the detriment of my mental and physical well-being.  Meanwhile, the person who owns the opinion I disagree with would continue to live their Lives unaffected by my thoughts on their beliefs.

As for Premier Davis, he took the politician’s way out.  His diluted response when asked about her, both condemning her and condoning her, with a reference to the ultimate sacrifice of veterans, was weak, disappointing and typically right down the middle.  He implied that veterans died so that we could say and do whatever we want.  I beg to differ, believing that they made the ultimate sacrifice so that we could live a Life that contributes to a better world, not one that detracts from the world or adds confusion to it.  If I follow his line of thinking, they may have died so that I could be a criminal. 

Sorry, Premier Davis, I am a literalist – the right to express an opinion (or take an action as a result of an opinion) is fine as long as it doesn’t intentionally harm others mentally, physically, emotionally, spiritually or financially UNLESS the person being “harmed” is in fact being stopped because they are harming others.

It is important that one’s opinions and beliefs about such things be known when offering one’s self for public service.  Once those opinions are generally known, should other people strongly disagree with them, then the people in disagreement should save their energy for a greater calling – the expression of their opinion by way of the ballot box.

The Bottom Line

Ms. Olivero has shared opinions that appear to not be grounded in science or reality.

While I strongly disagree with her beliefs, I would suggest that few of us would have the courage to share our own opinions and convictions in such a public way nor are we all as perfectly normal as we define normality to be as we destroy others from the safety, distance and anonymity of our laptop, tablet or smart phone.

Premier Davis has offered a weak response to questions about Ms. Olivero’s opinions.

Both have spoken and revealed elements of their beliefs.

That is their right.

If you don’t like it, express your opinion at the ballot box.

That is your right.

In doing so, you won’t need to be offended by either anymore.

In service and servanthood,

Harry

PS No matter how wonderful, relevant and important an opinion may appear to be, the one who expresses the opinion must always be cognizant of how the opinion will be received and therefore must accept all feedback, whether it be praise or condemnation.  No one can ever claim to be a victim when feedback is less than desirable for such feedback should have been anticipated before the opinion was offered.

---

Addendum – Maturity in Light of Feedback- November 18, 2015

Ms. Olivero was tweeting videos tonight, taunting people who took umbrage with her previously stated opinions.  Such exchanges are not helpful or mature, especially for the person whose opinions ignited the initial firestorm.  Here is an example (unless she deletes it) where she is taunting a person who recently lost a loved one to cancer.  Almost simultaneously, she posted this video (unless deleted) saying people shouldn’t take pot shots at each other. <<Author note – November 19, 2015: Ms. Olivero has deleted both videos.  Both can be seen here: PC candidate Tina Olivero addresses 'Twitter hate flurry'>>

Her Twitter bio says “Everyone is a leader. We don't need to be fixed, we need collective intelligence!”  It goes to show that chanting a mantra and living it can be difficult things to accomplish simultaneously.

Premier Davis cut her a break today and she took advantage of it, further condemning both of them. 

True character is revealed when weak leadership is present.

---

Final Chapter – Ms. Olivero Resigns – November 19, 2015

An interesting moment in Newfoundland and Labrador politics comes to a close with Ms. Olivero removing herself from the current election process.

Her lengthy resignation letter is at the bottom of this post.  It is intriguing how she doesn’t acknowledge any of her contribution to the events that transpired, how 3 of her 4 key points are directed towards “the media” and how it seems that this is everyone else’s fault that she has to step down.  No other analysis is necessary at this point.

This is her opinion.

She is entitled to it.

Ironically, she posted this photo on her Facebook wall a few days ago.

There may be something anti-climactic in this picture in regards to how her resignation reads.

It is time for people to move on and to allow her to resume her Life.

Her resignation letter follows:

I am stepping down as the Candidate for St. John’s East-Quidi Vidi.

After two weeks of campaigning it has become very clear that expressing my views on current issues has a massive impact in the political arena.

Mental wellness is a very serious issue and a person’s health and well being may include many approaches.

My view of wellness "includes" self awareness and that view has prompted the hate mail and backlash that has occurred in the last 48 hours online and in the media.

I have tried to explain that my words were taken out of context and in some cases, words were quoted that I didn’t say at all.

The media invitations to speak up on this matter have been declined because I believe that my words would be further misconstrued. So last night I addressed the situation in the best way possible through a controlled environment with my Facebook post entitled “My Story”.
With "My Story", I hoped the media frenzy would calm down and I could continue to campaign and focus on the people of my district.

That was not the case.

Today I was emailed by a reporter who has gone through my past with the hopes of discrediting me and plans to release his findings tomorrow.

This is the indicator that the environment for leadership in public service needs an entire new structure when it comes to media.

It’s time to clean up our own back yard and that starts with holding some of the media to account - NOT ALL media but some!

For these reasons I have chosen to step down:

1. The media is not in control of our outcomes and I am not prepared to be held hostage by any media - such as the email of the reporter today planning to "expose" me.

2. Stepping into a political campaign should not entail scrutiny with a targeted intent to harm - from the public or from the media.

3. Those campaigning for leadership roles should not have to put themselves, their families or their businesses at risk - emotionally, financially or in any other way.

4. We as a people, should not accept that media has power over us.

We get what we tolerate.

When we allow these incidences to happen we are the makers of our own demise.

A climate of no leadership is crippling because those who could best serve us will most likely never do so because of the type of experiences I have just encountered.

Worse than that it is unacceptable that a person's way of life, beliefs and ideas are used against them to support a “tweeter” or reporters’ bias, improve ratings, viewership or engagement.

I simply don't accept it because, this is not who we are.

A wise man once said, if you continue to dig up dirt eventually you will lose your ground. Today the media, social media, and our leadership culture overall has lost ground.

I sincerely wish all our candidates and parties in the provincial election, the very best.

Tina Olivero

---

Newfoundland Politicians–Candidates For the People or For the Waterford

One of the reasons people hate politics is that truth is rarely a politician's objective. Election and power are. - Cal Thomas

A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation. - James Freeman Clarke

The general election in my ancestral province of Newfoundland and Labrador is just around the corner (November 30, 2015) and as I ponder what type of future the citizens of that great province are contemplating, I can’t help but cast an eye of discernment over the candidates themselves.

As a person who evaluates people using data, I always examine politicians by the things that predict their behavior – things like their ethics, their morals, their values, their character and the people that they associate with.  It is contrary to how many voters evaluate candidates – based on their party, their looks, the selfish needs of the voters themselves or a small subset of the politician’s intentions or beliefs without looking at the larger picture.

It is because of how many voters select their candidates that they don’t foresee where their candidates will take the government and so today’s Leader-of-the-year, can-do-no-wrong hero becomes tomorrow’s despised, have-to-get-them-out-at-any-cost bucket of manure. 

The people leading us into heaven today become the people leading us into the apocalypse tomorrow and yet the funny thing is that they didn’t change and neither did we.  The only thing that changed was the revealing of their character, their motives, their abilities and their intentions.

And so now as I cast an eye of discernment over the candidates in the upcoming general election, some interesting things stand out:

• At least two candidates who are heavily into BDSM.  I don’t care about their personal preferences but their spouses are unaware of their interests since their acts are performed with others.
• At least one candidate who believes that they are one of ten prophets on planet Earth who have been selected to channel a new way of living on the planet, advice which is being sent from beings from another planet or dimension.  One individual tried to convince me that I was one of the ten as well.  Really.
• At least one candidate who makes a living promoting products and services for a company founded by a man who has been fleeing US authorities for years, wanted for fraud, tax evasion and a pile of other things associated with this company.  We are the company that we keep.
• More than one candidate who already has lined up lucrative deals with private corporations and individuals.  Forget the Tendering Act – it is merely a suggestion that is easily circumvented.  Some businesses are smart – they have secured the help of all sides.  The humorous thing is that each candidate is unaware that they are all being used.
• At least one candidate who has spent so much time gathering dirt on other people ala J. Edgar Hoover that the candidate is unaware that dirt is being shared about them amongst others with the belief that this may be leveraged to their advantage some day.  Some people have been waiting for an opportunistic moment to take the person out with litigation – the timing may be right if the candidate is elected since litigation is as much about emotion and leverage as it is about facts.

The list in front of me is long, complex, disturbing and frightening and includes most of the candidates.

Don’t ask me for it – I won’t share it – at least for now.

When I suggested on Twitter that I might share it, eight candidates reached out to me to ask me who I was outing.

Seven of them are on the list.

Oh well.

I’m not expecting candidates to be perfect.

However, I am expecting candidates to be in a position in their Life such that they can’t have their personal interests used against them in order for others to achieve greedy or nefarious objectives.

For some, I would expect the candidates to at least be sane since they are leading the Province legislatively, morally, etc.

And while there are politicians who exist to serve the people and leave the place better and stronger than they found it, they are in the minority.

The rest fall prey to greed, ignorance, ego and opportunism – either their own or someone else’s and it either takes them off the focus of serving the people who elected them or it throws them into disarray as they find themselves serving different masters who use personal information to direct their puppets.

When these things happen, we find them ignoring data at the risk of the Province.  When I wrote the blog post Newfoundland–Should We Just Shoot It And Put It Out Of Its Misery? in March of 2014, where I discussed the concern of the Newfoundland Government projecting $105 / barrel oil while Goldman Sachs was projecting $80 / barrel or worse, I was contacted by the Government and told to stop fear mongering.  As I write this, oil is hovering around $41 / barrel and budgets in the near term do NOT look good.  Ego has a way of not listening, doesn’t it?  Ego’s favorite tool, unfortunately, is intimidation and not education.

When these things happen, we find people using power to promote the unqualified or their own selfish needs.  When I wrote the blog post The Power of the Four-Poster Interview in October of 2013, I created a fuss when I opined on why and how someone with a high school education and no relevant job experience could be appointed to chair the College of the North Atlantic Board of Governors (amongst other appointments).  I suggested that it was possibly related to the reality that the minister who made the appointment and the person who was appointed were dating each other.  No conflict of interest there.

When these things happen, we find people who forget that they exist to serve the interests of the people transparently and honestly.  When they don’t as I mused in the blog post Muskrat Falls–Mastering the Art of Communication Failure in October of 2014, people should rise up in arms.  Instead, they complained a lot in coffee shops, op-eds and call-in programs.  That doesn’t change much.

Such things suggest to me think that despite the quality (or lack of) in people who get elected, the Province relies on the hard work and insight of the bureaucrats to make the Province work at all.  I mused about this in October of 2013 in the blog post The Newfoundland Government–Headed For the Garbage Can.

If the great people of Newfoundland and Labrador dare to demand better of their government, I would suggest that they dare to demand better of their own level of discernment first, to understand why a candidate seeks to be elected and whether that candidate is truly capable, able and worthy of serving the people.

Desire to serve the people is not enough – worthiness, ability, capability and intention matter.

The Bottom Line

Many fine, well-intentioned, capable, intelligent, moral, ethical, character-driven people offer themselves for public office.  We should never forget this or the sacrifices that such people make in order to serve us nor should we become cynical of the great system of democracy that we live in.

Unfortunately, it is rare to find all of these attributes within a single body and so government often elates us during the honeymoon phase only to leave us seeking the divorce lawyer quickly thereafter when the elation of the early romance has worn off.

The interesting thing that voters should always ask is this:

Why is it that when most politicians are voted out of office or leave of their own accord, they often leave the place worse off than it was when they were elected yet magically their personal situation has greatly improved during the same time period, with much additional prosperity (however you measure it) projected for them in the future.

To the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, know your candidate well before casting your vote on election day.

To do otherwise is to subject yourself to something you may not like and which may be less than you deserve.

Or at least less than what you think you deserve, for if you don’t make your choices wisely, you deserve whatever you get.

In service and servanthood,

Harry

PS For those who don’t understand the Waterford reference, it is a facility that is part of the hospital system in the Province. The Waterford facility has at various times contained treatment centers for those suffering from various psychological concerns and so years ago, to suggest that you were sending someone to the Waterford was to suggest that they weren’t terribly well-balanced.

As for what motivates me to write posts like this, I ask you consider this quote from Romans 12:2

Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God—what is good and acceptable and perfect.

People complain a lot about politicians but do little, thereby giving them more to complain about.

This doesn’t make sense to me.

Does it make sense to you?

What are you doing about it?

When?

---

Addendum – The Courage to Not Conform – November 13, 2015

Many times when my blog posts muse about unethical, immoral, illegal or strange behavior, the people affected or people representing them reach out to me and tell me that I can’t say what I said.

My reply is always “If I have said something not factual or not accurate, then tell me immediately and I will correct it or retract it otherwise the post stands” and I never hear from them again.  Oftentimes, what I have shared is just the tip of the iceberg and they recognize that to pursue their intention is to invite much worse to be revealed.

Unfortunately, many people who have gotten used to bullying and intimidating others into silence fall back on such techniques automatically to defend actions that they know are incorrect.

I don’t know what’s worse … that they find those techniques to be an acceptable form of defense for the indefensible or that people easily fall prey to such tactics, even when the people are in the right.

Are you easily intimidated?

Are you sure?

How do you know?

---