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?

Character, Values and the Price of Success

Knowledge will give you power, but character, respect. - Bruce Lee

Weakness of attitude becomes weakness of character. - Albert Einstein

No amount of technical administrative skill in laboring for the masses can make up for lack of nobility of personal character in developing relationships. - Stephen Covey

In the middle of a large deal, my team and I had the opportunity today to meet with one of the top lawyers in the mergers and acquisition space.  With only a few minor minefields left to navigate, we were told that this person would be one of the best people to represent us in bringing our “little baby” in for a soft landing.

As is always the case, I always perform significant due diligence before such meetings and I was cautioned by more than one person to be careful of a peculiarity that this person had and so I went to the meeting as prepared as I possibly could be.

Sure enough, part way through the meeting and in the middle of his song and dance about why he was the best person to represent us, he suddenly started speaking with a fake Australian accent, telling us about how his clients had lived in fear and terror in such deals until he came along and “saved the day”.

The accent threw me off and I thought perhaps he was having a stroke but then the moment I had been warned about materialized.  He reached into his bag and said “And when the other side brings a knife to the negotiating table, I say ‘That’s not a knife, this is a knife’” and he laid a large, Crocodile Dundee-like knife on the boardroom table.

No one said anything for a moment before I leaned over the table and said, “This is a friendly acquisition.  Why do I need you to bring a knife, even if only symbolically, to the table?”

“You missed my point”, he said, somewhat aloofly, “I help people to get over their fear by showing that I have their back.”

“Really?”, I asked, “Why do you think I should accept the insult that you believe we would be shaking in fear without you or that intimidation is the best way to complete a friendly business deal?”

He said nothing and then I picked up his knife and asked him, “Would you put this knife up to your throat and shave yourself with it?”

“Of course not”, he replied, “That would be crazy.”

I nodded and laid his knife on the table.  I had been warned of his presentation style and props and so I reached down into my bag and retrieved something specifically for the moment.

I laid my straight razor on the table beside his knife, its viciously sharp, unforgiving blade gleaming in the boardroom light. 

“I shaved with this blade this morning”, I said, “Now tell me why I should be afraid of whatever it is I’m supposed to be afraid of and how you are going to guide me past this fear.  And when you are done explaining that, I want you to tell us how intimidation trumps respectful dialog.”

I paused before continuing.  “My point’, I said, “Is that suggestions of fear or intimidation becoming part of our team and how we interact with others are not welcome here.  If you have anything else to offer, let’s continue otherwise the meeting is over.”

The meeting continued for an hour or so before we decided to take a break.

Everyone left the room except for one of his team who stayed behind.

As I caught up on my emails, she started some idle chatter about the need for the team to be at the airport before evening but as luck would have it, she was staying overnight.

I made a perfunctory response but she pressed the point, indicating that perhaps we could get together for dinner and drinks to smooth over any misunderstandings between myself and her boss.

I focused on my emails and she went for broke.

The offer, which I won’t get into here was direct and specific.  The only thing I didn’t know was whether I would be allowed to stay in her hotel room for the rest of the night or if I would be dismissed after “the smoothing of misunderstandings” process had been completed.  I also wasn't sure what complexity the wedding band on her finger would offer, if any.  It didn't seem to get in her way.

Plan B was in progress, given that the meeting itself was not going well.

I took out my phone, Googled some of the sex shops in the area and showed her the search results.

“Here’s what you need”, I said, directly, “The stuff they have in these stores is more in alignment with what you need.  They don’t have any character or values either – they just exist.”

She was very angry and said that she would take this up with her boss.

“Go ahead”, I replied, pointing to the device in the center of the conference room table, “You forgot that we are recording this session today.  I will play your offer to the team and invite you to explain it.”

She left the room without a sound but returned a few minutes later with “Crocodile Dundee”.

In the confrontation that ensued, it turned out that he wasn’t unhappy with what I said to her.  However, he was VERY unhappy with the fact that I had turned her down.

“I get it”, I said, feeling my blood pressure rising, “You’re both deal closers.  She closes the deal with me and then you close the larger deal for me.”

“Whatever it takes”, he replied.

I leaned in towards him, close enough to smell his cheap cologne.

“I don’t do whatever it takes”, I said, staring him in the eye, “I do whatever my values, ethics and character call me to do to deliver the best result possible for everyone around me.”

At the moment, the team began returning to the conference room.

I turned to the team and announced that we had decided that it was in our best interests to not work together and that he and his entourage would be returning to the airport ahead of schedule.

There were a few cries of surprise and as he left, he held out his hand.

“Sorry”, I replied, “I only shake the hand of people I respect.”

He left and I explained to the team what had happened, replaying the recording of both her offer and the lawyer’s subsequent challenge to me.

I wonder how many more out there are like him …

… or who don’t have the courage or the willpower to turn people like him away.

Meanwhile …. related and not ….

I had two interesting conversations with colleagues in the last week regarding similar subjects.

In one, a Government Minister whom I have the HIGHEST regard for in regards to character, values, ethics, Life purpose, service to others and other noble attributes, lamented that their results were being compromised because of the fine line they walk, where the balancing act of accomplishing great things for their constituents while towing the party line was difficult to manage, with the latter being complicated by the skullduggery, backstabbing and yes, adultery going on all around the Minister.

I challenged the Minister to live by their character and values (which far outshine the Minister’s colleagues).  I will be curious to see what happens next - courage requires small steps at first.  However, I was encouraged today when I received an SMS from the Minister, quoting Ruth Gordon:

Courage is very important  Like a muscle, it is strengthened by use.

In the other conversation, a friend of mine, a subject matter expert on guiding organizations through change and transition, suddenly found herself being talked around in a meeting otherwise attended by only men.  Even though SHE was the subject matter expert in the room, they talked around her as if she didn’t exist.

She reached out to me for advice on how to deal with such ignorance in the 21st century and this is what I told her.

“Go to a local adult store and buy the largest phallus you can find.  Bring it to the meeting but leave it put away.  If the same level of disrespect occurs and you can’t get yourself inserted into the conversation, take it out, place it on the table and express gratitude that you brought yours to the meeting also and thus deserve to be heard.”

“Or”, I continued, “buy the smallest one you can find, take it out during the meeting and make an observation that having presented the largest one in the room, you now have a right to speak and to be heard.”

After she expressed gratitude that I used comedy to give her the best laugh she had had all day, I replied that I wasn’t joking.

We must always take a stand against the ignorant and those who choose to limit the result of others who champion character, values, ethics, respect and higher standards.

We must do it directly and respectfully.

But we must do it.

The price we pay for not doing it is too high and grows every time we choose not to take a stand.

The Bottom Line

In thinking through my event today, I wonder how many people would have taken the lawyer’s assistant up on her less than generous offer, especially if they thought they could do it without anyone knowing about it.

I could have accomplished that easily and no one would have been the wiser.

But I would have known - how could I demand that others live to a higher standard if I chose to live to the contrary?.

And an Authority that judges me would have known.

I wonder how many people may have turned down the original offer but then succumbed to the pressure that her boss attempted to exert under the confident “whatever it takes” banner.

Success is a tempting mistress and human frailty has undermined many a good human being.

The point is that when people collaborate with us or represent us, their character becomes a projection of ours.  So when they sit before others at the boardroom table, no matter how much I try to live by a higher standard, the only thing the other people in the boardroom would remember me for would be this person’s character and values …. or lack thereof.

We are the company that we keep or whom we allow to speak on our behalf.

This lawyer’s projection on my behalf wouldn’t be acceptable to me.

Would it be acceptable to you that someone else would do “whatever it takes” in order to get something done?

Are you willing to literally do “whatever it takes”?

Are you willing to reap the harvest or pay the price for how you live your character and values (or how someone else represents them)?

Are you sure?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Addendum

I looked up her husband and discovered that he has a successful practice in Toronto.  I wonder what would happen if I sent him a copy of the recording of his wife "in action".  Would he be offended, hurt or would he respond with a "So?  What's your point?"?

The young lady was also potentially setting herself up.  What if I had agreed to the rendezvous just to use her and then turn down their offer to represent us?  What if I was a nut who caught her by surprise and hurt her?

Then there's the possibility that if I had succumbed to such an offer, a recording of the event could have placed me (or them) in a professionally compromising position.

And finally, what if we had agreed to team up with this bunch of miscreants and the same tactics were used with the people we were negotiating with, potentially costing me a sale, a friendship or both?

The sad reality is that they likely had enough previous experience with some sense of success to believe that this was going to be a successful option today.   What does this say about the people they collaborated with in the past?

So many possibilities, all of them wrong, but the possibilities having been created with the first terrible choice.

Coal miners often had a canary in the mines with them and if the canary died, it would be a warning that the air was unsafe and so they had to evacuate immediately.  As a colleague said to me today, events such as this one are a "canary in the coal mine" in regards to how society is evolving (or devolving).

What do you think?

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 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?

---

If Only You Weren’t So Stupid, You’d Understand

Never insult anyone by accident. - Robert A. Heinlein

An injury is much sooner forgotten than an insult. - Philip Stanhope, 4th Earl of Chesterfield

[Author Note: After this blog was posted, Ms. Buzreba abandoned her campaign.  Here is her statement:

My post remains as a warning for other politicians who insist that their actions of the past are not a reflection of who they are in the present.  I believe Ms. Buzreba did the honorable thing which in fact IS an example of positive character.  Now … if only Hillary Clinton ……

So as you read this post, think about other politicians instead of Ms. Buzreba.  Perhaps they could learn something from her graceful exit.]

The original blog post continues ……

The political world has become all abuzz once again as another political wannabe, Calgary-Nosehill Liberal candidate Ala Buzreba, sees her social media past become, unfortunately, her present as Alberta NDP MLA Deborah Drever experienced shortly after being elected.

It seems that Ms. Buzreba, in a life that has clearly prepared her for public service, has previously graced the Twitter world with beautiful gems such as:

And of course, the ever so poetic, so intellectual, so mature  ….

Unfortunately, such words become politically inconvenient when running for office so Ms. Buzreba felt obliged today to issue an apology that included these tweets:

Ah yes – the classic politician who wears the Teflon suit of convenient misdirection, revisionism and amnesia with a touch of mass hypnosis sprinkled in …. “you will forget what you have seen here”.

Fortunately or unfortunately, Jedi mind tricks only work on the weak-minded – it all depends on how many weak-minded people are present at the time.

When one makes comments that are crass, immature or insulting and they make headlines once discovered, it doesn’t become “a lesson in social media” as she dismisses her comments.

It is a statement about her character, since social media doesn’t change our character, it reveals it.

As for the tweets not reflecting her views, everything I think, speak and write are a reflection of my views and yet she somehow thinks that we can be convinced that what she says doesn’t represent how she thinks?

Perhaps this suggests that she in fact will be the perfect politician since we rarely receive from politicians what they tell us we will should we elect them.  Her training is complete.

And while she can dismiss the ranting of her 17-20 year old self as being from someone who wasn’t as mature as she is now, I know that when I was 20 years old, I knew the difference between being respectful and not.

The reality is that the foundation of her character appears to have a malfunction in it but she, like many politicians, think that it is fair territory to insult or degrade and to dismiss it with a perfunctory apology whenever convenient (translation: whenever caught).

We are taught that everyone makes mistakes and so we should forgive everyone when they offer an apology and beg for forgiveness.

Unfortunately, too many times this becomes a useful, strategic weapon of choice for the bully and the ignorant, since the convenient apology always stands at the ready after the damage has been inflicted upon a person or an organization.

Imagine if I insulted her gender, her faith or anything else about her and having inflicted an unethical, immoral or illegal barb, I retracted the statement saying I was merely having a bad day.

Imagine if we all lived this way.

The difficulty here is that what we don’t condemn today, we accept tomorrow …..

….. and what we accept today, we embrace tomorrow.

If you find such perfunctory apologies acceptable, send me an email.  I will have someone arrange to have you or someone that matters to you incessantly insulted on a personal level so that you can see what such a society will eventually look like.

Perhaps if we didn’t forgive and forget so easily those who mistakes are more character flaws with intentional acts of malice behind them rather than simple accidents, people would be forced to think more before they speak or act.

And besides, we need stronger character in our leaders and politicians … not weaker.

The Bottom Line

Character is not something that is suddenly put on like a new jacket or suddenly discovered in a revelation when someone discovers something nasty in our past.

It is a seed that is planted early, nurtured carefully over the years and is revealed when we are called upon to be at our best, especially during times when we face our deepest, most daunting, challenges.

And in such situations, what we say and do provide insight into who we are, sometimes to our chagrin.

While we can choose to ignore the warning signs of flawed character in ourselves and others, we can’t ignore the results produced by that flawed character.

By the way, I’m sorry for calling you stupid.  I asked someone for a second opinion and they said you were ugly too (thanks, Rodney Dangerfield).

Actually I don’t think you are either ….. and I stand by everything I say.

Do you forgive me?

More importantly …..

Do you stand by everything you say and do and does it reflect who you are?

Do you care about the consistency of what others say and do as a reflection of their character?

Does it matter?

Should you care?

How do you know?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

The Poison Pill in the Wildrose Defection

I'm a traitor, but I don't consider myself a traitor. - Aldrich Ames

“You lose your voice for your constituents and you lose your voice to advocate,” – Danielle Smith – November 26, 2014 (when asked about the defection of Kerry Towle to the PC Party)

“We’re here to just make sure that Albertans are taken care of and that when the government makes mistakes they’re called out on them.  They make an awful lot of mistakes so it keeps us pretty busy.” – Danielle Smith – November 26, 2014 (when asked about the defection of Kerry Towle to the PC Party)

As news breaks of the potential defection of major players from the Wildrose Party to the PC Party, including Opposition Leader Danielle Smith, Rob Anderson, Jeff Wilson, Gary Bikman, Jason Hale and Blake Pedersen (maybe more to be announced), I can’t help but think of the poison pill this represents to the PC Party.

The fact that leaders of a political party could abandon their party when “the times get tough” is a major reflection upon their character and their dedication to their former organization and the people within that organization.

The fact that one of the defectors, Rob Anderson, has done this more than once (having defected from the PC Party to the Wildrose and now is attempting to return to the PC Party) is a damning conviction in regards to his character and his opportunistic nature.  In doing so, he has slammed both parties and therefore is worthy of neither.

When one considers the venomous attacks against the PC Party by this merry band of roving politicians, one has to wonder what exorcism, voodoo or other transformational process was imparted upon them that converted their hate into love.

Do they suddenly believe (or want us to believe) that the party they hated is suddenly worth embracing in order to meet their constituent's needs or should we call it for what it probably is – a selfish or self-serving gesture that suggests that they believe that they cannot beat Jim Prentice in the next election and so it is better to join the winning side early rather than go down to defeat.

Why would the PC Party accept them?

It would make sense if the PC Party were desperate to increase its control of the Legislature but the Legislature is already well in-hand, so the extra votes aren’t needed.

Do the defectors bring any skills to the PC Party that the Party does not currently have?  If the defectors’ public actions are to be used as the litmus test, the answer would be no.

However, absorbing them into a Party that has its future well in-hand opens the door to internal rifts as Wildrose-leaning insiders and original PC Party members begin to clash on policy, platform, candidate nomination / selection, etc.

The rumor that the defectors will be provided with uncontested nominations for their ridings in the upcoming election will also alienate long-time PC supporters and deepen this rift.

To add insult to injury, what happens if some of the defectors are offered plum ministerial portfolios while long-time members of the PC Party who stood by the Party when times were difficult are passed over?

And let us not forget that the existence of a strong opposition (as far as it is) ensures transparency and accountability in government.  The Wildrose Party has created more insight into the workings of the Alberta PC Party than has been seen in the Province for many years.  The fact that receiving the defectors would even be considered by the PC Party is a warning that there would be no solid opposition remaining to question the action, something that should concern the citizens of Alberta.

The Wildrose Party has also contributed to the overthrowing of two Alberta Premiers so their track record is actually not too shabby.

The Bottom Line

Once someone demonstrates that they can’t be trusted with another party, why would you suddenly believe they are trustworthy in your own camp, unless you are so desperate for their support that you can look blindly past the obvious as politicians often do in order to accomplish their objectives.

And so with no obvious upside and plenty of opportunity for downside, the PC Party should reject the Wildrose defectors as being of insufficient character and values for the Party and being a potential poison pill in the future.

If they are rejected and return to take over the helm of the Wildrose Party, it would be justice for that Party to reject them also for once a self-serving traitor’s motives have been exposed, can you ever really trust them in the future?

After all, this is what this event is all about – an evaluation of character, values and trust of both the PC and Wildrose Parties and the question of whether these attributes can be found in the people who serve the Province.

Let us not forget that in the end, the constituents must come first.

Do the elected officials in question remember this?

If the Wildrose Party does take them back (should they be rejected by the PCs), maybe the Wildrose Party should be renamed something more appropriate … maybe something like the Benedict Arnold Party.

Because that name appears to be a more accurate reflection of the character and values of many (not all) of the players leading it.

I think that the people within the Wildrose and PC Parties and the people of Alberta deserve better.

What do you think?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

PS When I see actions such as those taken by the defectors, I think of posters like this:

or this:

Addendum – Maybe Not What It Seems - December 17, 2014

Watching some PC MLAs say that they can “look beyond the past” implies that said MLAs don’t care about the company that they keep as long as the company that they keep appears to serve their own needs.

I wonder if the backlash against the defectors would be so great that they would go down to defeat in the next election anyway (regardless of the party they serve) and if that were to happen, is acceptance of the defectors just a waste of time and energy or is it part of a masterful plan to skewer the Wildrose Party, using the self-serving nature of the defectors against themselves?

Or …. is this the greatest political takeover in Alberta history, with in fact the Wildrose policies becoming the PC Party policies, bringing true conservatism back to the PC Party and making the Wildrose experiment one of the more brilliant ones in Canadian political history.  This scenario would bode well for the defectors with potential plum ministerial positions being offered to them but would alienate the left-leaning members of the PC Party, thus encouraging them to move on if they don’t like what they see. 

Time will tell.

Final Addendum – The Deal is Done – December 18, 2014

As the dust settles at the time I write this, 9 members of the Wildrose Party have joined the PC Party, simultaneously gutting the Official Opposition, practically wiping out the Party that stood in opposition and providing guaranteed jobs to the 9 self-serving individuals who put themselves above their Party, their colleagues, their friends and the people they serve.  The backlash from both PC and Wildrose Party members has been strong.  However, to the many who donated significant time, energy and money to the Wildrose Party, the feeling of betrayal appears to be especially strong as Ms. Smith and company stabbed them in the back without remorse.

It doesn’t matter to the floor crossers.  They are, after all, politicians.  Should we have dared to expect anything better from the people who dared to insist they were different than the team they have just joined?

Shame on them or shame on us?

While the gushing, positive language in Ms. Smith’s press presentation was all around “like minds coming together”, the words sounded empty and hypocritical.  She carefully evaded providing specific answers to any questions posed by the press and successfully said a lot about nothing (or nothing about a lot, depending on your interpretation).  She is a politician first.

In business and in Life, I believe that a large part of how people perceive me is based on the company I keep.  I personally wouldn’t take anyone on any team of mine whose selfish needs destroy others in the process.  Not only would that person’s character reflect poorly on my own character, but the reality is that I would never know when the person would do the same to me.  Some of these floor crossers have demonstrated such repeat behavior already.

The world of politics is very different.  While people can campaign on things like character and values, such attributes take second place to accomplishing the needs of the politicians, needs that hopefully intersect somewhere with the needs of the people. The Premier didn’t need to accept the floor crossers, having the legislative weight to accomplish his intentions but he did so anyway, accepting people of lesser character into his team.

If it is a reflection on the Premier and the PC Party, at this point it doesn’t matter.  He has a legislative juggernaut that doesn’t need to pay attention to the people and is no longer faced with the challenge of answering to an opposition. 

These events also send a message to the members of the PC Party who stuck it out when times got difficult.  The message is two-fold:

1. Your ongoing support is appreciated but may not be rewarded as the floor crossers secure plum positions in lieu of those who worked hard for the Party.
2. Character and values are optional, except when being promoted to the electorate at election time as essential attributes that differentiate the Party from others.

While people insist that this is not a merger of two parties, I have read confidential documents from unhappy participants in this event that suggest that the PC Party is about to move much further to the right.

Where does that leave Red Tories, both candidates and the people who support them?

Time and the level of electorate amnesia that is common with such events will prove to be very revealing.

And finally, while I was never a fan of the Wildrose Party, I did admire their tenacity in being a strong opposition despite their small size.  Their ferocity and perseverance accomplished a lot within the Legislature that benefitted the people of Alberta.  Are the days of someone holding the Government accountable and responsible gone for the people?

Time will tell.