Canadian Election–When You Just Don’t Know Who to Vote For

Leadership is not about the next election, it's about the next generation. - Simon Sinek

Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few. - George Bernard Shaw

People never lie so much as after a hunt, during a war or before an election. - Otto von Bismarck

Election season has gripped us once again, being full swing in Canada while the US goes through the throes of candidate selection, the latter being that magical process where candidate wannabes spend months proving that opponents within the same party are unworthy of office until one is chosen to represent the party, upon which the same detractors will then tell you why that person is magically and suddenly THE BEST candidate for the job.

And once again, social media, coffee shops, mainstream media and everywhere else are filled with an emotion-laden (sometimes hate-filled), fact-less cacophony of noise that proves several points:

1. Many reporters and pundits have no clue about anything with the exception of an amazing grasp of clichés and what-if pontificating.
2. The majority are easily moved by emotion to serve the needs of the minority.
3. The voices of well-intentioned, potentially competent people who truly want to serve the people are often lost in the noise of incompetent, not-so-well intentioned people, whether that be the people who are running for office or the people who support them.
4. Emotion means more than facts (and is far more useful).
5. Tearing others down is an easier, more useful strategy than promoting one’s own strengths and ideas.
6. People rarely understand (or even have a vague idea) of the platforms of the people they are supporting.
7. The previous point occasionally applies to politicians themselves.
8. Great people, intelligent and focused on serving others, exist but one must work hard to find them.

I wonder if people would make smarter, more informed choices when it comes to elections if they viewed the election as Simon Sinek did – that the result of any given election is not about what the voters want now but it does determine what kind of future the voters want to create for their children.

Outside of the rare minority who actually understand political party platforms, understand the upside and downside of each and can make informed decisions (choosing either the best choice or the lesser of many evils), most people have zero idea why their candidate or party is best and why everyone else’s candidate or party is the worst.

And because of this, I believe federal elections create a lot of unnecessary stress on people as they struggle to complete more important tasks in their day, whether it be deciding whether they want the 32 or 64 gig version of the newest smartphone, whether cats or dogs make for better Facebook updates, how one is doing in the NFL Fantasy League (I’m currently in third – thanks for asking) and whether Night of the Living Dead could really happen.

It’s the same sort of confusion that people face as they plunk down millions on lotteries.  Many (especially those who failed mathematics) believe that picking their own numbers gives them a mathematical or astrological advantage over others.

Others get overwhelmed with the choices of numbers and whether they are good luck or bad (with cultural demographics, life experiences and children’s birth dates impacting their decisions) and being in a hurry to post their cat pictures on social media, they choose a Quick Pick with the belief that deities and mathematical odds have assured them of success.

With that in mind and with an eye towards helping Canadians so that they don’t get too preoccupied with the important task of determining a future that impacts our children, I would like to recommend to Elections Canada that we create a new ballot.

Here is a sample of what it could look like:

Imagine the unfortunate voter who, upon settling into the privacy of the polling station, gets overwhelmed with evaluating important data – his eyes are creepy (is he really the Devil incarnate), is he really like his father or just a paper facsimile, would he really create an alliance with other communists, etc.

The Quick Pick solves all of this.

Upon presentation of ID, the voter merely says proudly, “I’ll take a quick pick, please”, and a computer will randomly select a party and place a vote on the voter’s behalf.

It’s fast, doesn’t require stressful thinking and allows the voter to get on to the things that really matter.  They can also share on social media that they voted and that their friends should feel ashamed if they don’t do the same.  After people reveal their vote on social media, they can enjoy being called an idiot or a traitor for no valid reason that has any sense of rationalization associated with it.

The Quick Pick works – since the voter rarely understands what the candidates represent anyway, they don’t really lose but like the lottery, they don’t really win either, with their odds being slim to almost none.

The Bottom Line

This is all, of course, whimsical sarcastic thinking (except for the rabid minions who got halfway through this blog post and are in the process of sending me a death threat).

To implore voters to really get to know the issues is as useful and fruitful as it is to throw a drowning man both ends of a rope.  For the many who do, it has a nice, feel-good association with it but serves no one in the end.

However, when we choose not to vote or not to choose our vote carefully and intelligently based on data, we are either insisting that the right to vote and the right to a free, just democracy is not important enough to assert and defend or that we don’t care what kind of future we create for our children.

Which one would you like to be accused of?

Think … then vote … .both matter.

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Is Calgary’s Crime Rate Out of Control?

You can have data without information, but you cannot have information without data. - Daniel Keys Moran

I attended a forum last week between the two candidates for the role of Councillor (Ward 12) for the City of Calgary and it represented, at least to me, the sharp contrast between Canadian and US-style politics.

The incumbent, Shane Keating, discussed his family, his ties to the community, his record within the Calgary council chamber and his plans for the future.  He insisted on keeping the campaign above-board and indicated his desire to campaign on the issues and not by bashing the other candidate.

The challenger, Stephanie Kusie, opened by attacking the incumbent for allegedly producing no results of value and for implying that he was unable or unlikely to produce any results of value in the future.

To quote from her opening remarks, after her obligatory thank-yous to the host, the incumbent and the attendees, she said:

What I'm really excited about with this forum is that this forum, as Peter indicated, is about ideas but the truth is that ideas can be meaningless if there is no action and there are no results and I think that Ward 12 deserves better action and better results ……

And with those opening remarks, I knew that I was in for a contest between calm sharing of data and emotion-based, fear-laden rhetoric.

In essence, I was watching the clash of the Canadian and American political systems respectively.

Now in truth, anger, fear and indignation sell as I described here in Anger: Setting Yourself Up For Manipulation and as was so well described in the excellent book Trust Me, I’m Lying – Confessions of a Media Manipulator.

And the American political system, which Ms. Kusie has been immersed in for years as a diplomat and which I have spent most of my Life in, would be the system that she has witnessed the most in her recent history – a system where emotion over facts is used very effectively.

But I’m a data guy – not an emotion guy

As a data guy, I have noticed over the years that the more emotional a candidate gets and the more evasive they are regarding questions such as “why?” and “how do you know?”, the less likely that the candidate has any factual foundation for their campaign at all.

For example, Ms. Kusie indicated during the debate that there is increasing concern about crime and vandalism in her ward and implied that many constituents are becoming fearful of their neighborhood.

I was intrigued by this as I am active in the community and I wasn’t aware of any heightened crime concerns.

However, I’m a data guy.

So when Ms. Kusie tweeted this yesterday (along with the Facebook post), beating the crime drum again, I thought I would explore the statistics.

Since Ms. Kusie discussed or implied in the forum last week that in regards to crime her focus was on the crimes of assault and vandalism, I went to the Calgary Police Service website that tracks such crimes.

And since she named Cranston specifically in yesterday’s tweet, I selected the data slice for that neighborhood for the last 6 months (the largest slice available on the website).

Here’s what I came up with.

Choosing the crime stats she was interested in last week, specifically assault, attempted murder, homicide, robbery, sex offences (the personal attack categories) and vandalism, I came up with the astounding number of 13 violations for the last 6 months.

Is this a crime rate out of control?

Hardly.

But people without data need to fall back on emotion, fear and hysteria because that’s all they have.  Her tweet discussed “unreported crimes”, a subjective topic that can be easily hyped up in absence of real data.  It also implies that she has alternate sources of information that are not readily available to others.

Sadly, voters who don’t rely on data will easily fall susceptible to such a ploy.

Meanwhile when the tough questions come her way

Despite my requests for her to answer “why” and “how do you know” when it comes to her assertions and intentions, I received the classic response often provided by people who can’t answer to the data.

I didn’t get an answer at all.

Her website has this interesting opening line as to why she should be the choice of Calgarians in Ward 12.

When I asked her at the forum how she would make “Calgary the best city it can be”, in other words how did this line translate into measurable actions, she denied that it was on her website and we argued over it.

A week later, it is still there.

And I still don’t know what it means.

If I can’t translate rhetoric, emotion or “feel good” into a measurable future, I don’t know how I can vote for her either.

Now if she can convince me that the current crime wave in our ward is about to overwhelm us and she knows how to fix that, I might change my mind.

But somehow I don’t think she cares about data.

And so we become the classic paradox of the irresistible force versus the immovable object, with people like me becoming a major source of irritation that needs to be ignored, buried or neutralized.

The Bottom Line

I wonder if elections like this are a litmus test, on a micro level, of the future of politics in Canada.

Are Canadians still the type of people who care about the issues and who demand that candidates demonstrate how they will address the issues in a respectful way?

Or have Canadians fallen to the US model, where whoever shouts the loudest, appears to be the most intimidating and avoids answering the questions using data will be the winner?

I think this election will answer that question.

What do you think?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Addendum

I have great respect for Ms. Kusie and anyone else who puts their name in the ring to run for politics.  It is a difficult, often thankless job for the candidate and their family and it takes great courage (in addition to other resources) to submit one’s self to a living, 24x7 “Whose Line Is It Anyway” regimen where no matter how well you do, half the people will not like your answers or results.

And we must never forget that good human beings run for office in every election.

However, even good human beings have to remain accountable in terms of what they are offering, what they intend to do for their constituents and how they intend to do it.

Rather than merely tear their opponent down, they should take their passion, wrap it around facts that have context for the voter and take that to victory.

We should be able to elect the person who lifted themselves up the most and not the person who tore the other person down the most.

Because when we elect the person who won by tearing the other person down, we all lose eventually.

If they will tear others down, what does it say about their ability to negotiate and collaborate – to “play well” with others?

And what does it say about what they will think of their constituents if our feelings or demands for accountability get too “inconvenient” for them once they are in office?

What indeed?

Addendum – October 1, 2013

For those who missed the forum, it can be viewed here.

 

And as a final note to close this subject, here is Mayor Nenshi’s thought on the concept of crime in Calgary.

Addendum – October 7, 2013

In an interesting back and forth with one of her campaign staff today, Ms. Kusie’s failure to answer questions was explained as follows:

to which I replied:

This is disappointing.  One looks for new candidates to bring in fresh concepts in ideation, expression, collaboration and execution.  Defensive or deflective postures suggest otherwise, either in the candidate or perhaps in the people who are advising the candidate.

The end result is the same.

The other funny thing to note is that for all the time these fine people have to entertain “intellectual exchanges” defending their candidate, they never get around to answering the questions. :-)

If I were running for office, I would spend more time creating alliances and less time creating self-perceived antagonists.  Life tends to be easier and more successful that way.

In closing, one of this individual’s closing comments strengthens my argument that facts and data are essential to dialog.

The author of this tweet is attempting to plant a seed of deception, lack of transparency or lack of honesty on my part by suggesting that I am covertly connected with her candidate’s competitor’s family.

When I indicated that I have no association with her candidate’s competitor’s family (I’ve never even met them), she tweeted this.

So emotion, confrontation and misinformation are fine from her perspective.

But when one stands up to this by demanding transparency, facts and truth, she withdraws from the conversation, citing issues with “the other person”.

As I said … disappointing.

One final addendum (hopefully) – October 7, 2013

There was an amusing moment that occurred later when someone from the Keating (Ms. Kusie’s opponent) campaign stated unequivocally that I was not associated with his campaign or his family at all, to which Ms. Kusie’s staff member replied:

With this tweet, there was a suggestion, as inferred by some people who commented on this tweet, that @NOYFB_Sith was the alleged son of Councillor Keating that I was covertly connected with.  I think people came to this conclusion because @NOYFB_Sith wasn’t part of the conversation at all but was suddenly named in the “conversation wrap-up”.

The funny thing is that he is not related to Councillor Keating either.  His hilarious response to this inference cannot be repeated here – it is a family-friendly website after all. :-)

Closure – October 8, 2013

I was grateful that Ms. Kusie reached out to me and apologized for my experience with a member of her campaign team, indicating that the person above does not speak on behalf of her or her campaign.  Time and actions taken moving forward will serve as evidence of the authenticity of the apology.  Almost 24 hours after that apology, the individual above is still self-described as:

Given that the person above initiated conversation with me claiming to represent the campaign as the social media / marketing advisor, this should serve as a warning to all people with public personas that our reputation is built not only upon what we say and do but upon what others claiming to represent us say and do as well.

Closure – For Real :-) - October 9, 2013

I see 24 hours later that this person no longer references the Kusie campaign on her Twitter profile but still does on her LinkedIn profile (perhaps in response to this blog).

It doesn’t matter at this point.  Damage to the campaign has already occurred, with people I don’t even know stopping me and asking me if I’m the guy that they saw on Twitter having “an interesting conversation” with this person.

Some free advice

It reminds me of the following key behaviors for any politician or their supporters to observe when in the public eye (not an exhaustive list):

• You should always endeavor to guide the conversation without letting it get out of control.
• If you can't control it, keep it positive or at least neutral.
• Don't make it personal.
• Don't let anything get under your skin – never let them see you sweat.
• Never get angry.  It reflects poorly on you and may be used to your disadvantage as I noted in Anger: Setting Yourself Up For Manipulation.
• Anything said on social media lives forever – remember this before making an angry or embarrassing comment publicly.
• Seek to create alliances and not antagonists.
• Never attack a voter or belittle their questions or efforts to obtain clarity or information.
• Pursuant to the previous point, don’t confuse (intentionally or otherwise) a request for information with being attacked.  You may think it is a useful strategy but it can be leveraged to make you look weak or stupid.
• You may invite a pile-on in social media if you attack others – don’t claim to be a victim if this occurs.  This lowers your credibility even further.
• If the issue is dead, let it remain dead.  Don’t deliberately bring it back to Life, especially if the previous incarnation created problems for yourself or the people you work with.
• Be aware of the Vatican Effect (aka the Streisand Effect as I described in The Voice of the Rebel).  Specifically, the Vatican Effect states that: The more noise someone makes trying to hide or refute something, the more Life they give it, requiring a closer investigation as a result (named after Dan Brown’s sudden success with “The DaVinci Code” when the Vatican set up a group to destroy its credibility). The traffic to this blog post had pretty much died down until this person’s actions caused a lot of people to revisit it – creating elevated readership and bringing unfortunate information back into the conversation.

Bottom line: We must always be careful of people who speak (or claim to speak) on our behalf.

The damage they produce may be irreparable.

Choose your support wisely.

The US Election and the Real Energy Crisis in America

It is with a sigh of relief (of sorts) that I see the current election campaign coming to an end in America.

It has been the most partisan, nastiest, information-less, information-twisting, spin-filled, hate-filled campaign that I have witnessed in my stay on this planet.

This campaign has truly brought out the best and the worst in many citizens in the great nation that is the United States of America.

It is also a reminder to me of the real energy crisis in America.

I hear that we need to be more energy-independent, that we will have an energy crisis if we don’t figure out more ways to be self-sustaining.

However, the real energy crisis is in how much negativity we are embracing and spreading, in this election campaign and in Life in general.

A shortage of petrol is not our issue.

A surplus of vitriol is the issue.

And as long as we drive our selfish wants and needs first and foremost and we are willing to beat people physically or verbally in order to drive our agenda with little respect for the opinions, ideas and needs of others, our situation will continue to get worse and not better.

“Democrat or Republican – A Difference Not It Makes” – Yoda

As Americans go to the polls today, it doesn’t matter if the winner is Democrat or Republican.

To think that one man with a few specific party ideals will magically transform the nation overnight is naive and dangerous.

2008 should have taught people this.

The country has an inertia that cannot be changed by the actions of a few people on the Hill.

It’s like a swimmer deciding that they can change the direction of a cruise ship by swimming up to it and pushing against the bow with their pinkie finger.

What matters is that the winner, either the incumbent or the challenger, put personal and party needs behind them and do what is right for the nation.

And that we lay our personal wants and needs aside, stop yelling and hurling insults at each other and work together with our lawmakers, regardless of party affiliation, to create a stronger nation and a stronger world.

Because if we don’t, our future looks far more uncertain than our present and may include some very real, very frightening scenarios.

Are you prepared to allow that to happen?

Are you willing to condemn your children to such a future – a future that you created because you couldn’t get past your disdain for the beliefs of your countryman in order to create a better world?

I didn’t think so.

But words are cheap.

Let your actions be so loud that no one can hear what you are saying.

Why wait for others to create a better world and be constantly disappointed in their efforts when we have a better chance to create one by working together and holding each other accountable and responsible for a better result?

It’s not up to “them” to create a better world.

It’s up to us.

All of us.

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

And if you live in America, get out and vote.  It is a privilege that many in the world will never have the opportunity to experience.

A privilege that should be the foundation of something to build a brighter future upon instead of something that divides us.

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Elections and the Smear Campaign–Weapon of the Future

Watching the Democrats employ the ultimate smear campaign against Mitt Romney has been the most disappointing campaign I have ever witnessed. 

Democrats in recent months have accused Romney of being a felon, a tax evader and now a direct contributor to someone’s death from cancer.  I understand that Mr. Axelrod and Mr. Obama have used this technique quite successfully in previous campaigns and so they are bringing out the big guns one more time

Sadly, Mr. Obama did promise never to resort to such tactics as noted below in a campaign speech from 2008 but you know what they say about how you can tell if a politician is lying.

 

2008 Democrat campaign trail

 

Some liberal democrats that I have tried to discuss this with using data and facts have tried to silence me with yelling, screaming and death threats.

Yes, the days of the ultimate weapons of choice to win an election or a debate have arrived.  Campaigns have always been dirty, but these unsubstantiated allegations by “unnamed sources” are a new low.

The way I see it, there are only a few things left for Romney to be accused of:

1. Wife battery

2. Pedophilia

3. A desire to reinstate slavery as a personal affront to the President once he is out of office.

4. That gun-toting Republicans will be ordered to shoot Democrats randomly in public places should the GOP lose the upcoming election.

But let’s explore this a little.  Maybe I am wrong.

Maybe these guys are on to something.

Perhaps if we consider some scenarios that ring closer to home that we will be able to see the power and wonder of this technique.

Bidding For Business

You might consider my competition, Mr. Prospect.  Hopefully he will have dug himself out of the court case with his last client by then.  What are the details?  Oh, I can’t say. That’s confidential information.

Business Relationship That Ended

Of course I couldn’t work with that guy any more.  I don’t work with guys sleeping around on their wives. Who is he fooling around with?  I can’t say because I wouldn’t want to hurt his family.

High School

Dear Mr. So-and-So.  Here’s a picture of you and my fellow student so-and-so (you don’t know that it’s photoshopped).  I’m expecting to have a good year in my senior year, if you catch my meaning.  I’d hate for this picture to get onto Facebook by accident.

School Yard

Mommy, Sarah keeps picking on me!.  That’s ok, Dear.  The next time Sarah picks on you, tell all the other kids that her Daddy touches her where he shouldn’t and she will stop picking on you.

Bored Soccer Mom

Can you believe that she said she didn’t like my new purse?  Maybe if she didn’t spend her time snorting lines of coke at home that she might still have some semblance of taste.

Sprinkle in some social media as we embrace this and we’re reaching the masses with our “powerful” message.

Yes, the possibilities are endless.

But wait!  What about the example we are setting for our youth?

Screw ‘em – they’re just a bunch of devil-worshipping, drug-dealing, lazy people, aren’t they?  They don’t care.

The Reality

Anyone who knows me knows that I don’t believe this about young people.

But there are three things I do believe when it comes to our youth.

1. We emulate our leaders in thought, word and action.

2. That which we tolerate today we embrace tomorrow.

3. The legacy that we are leaving for our youth and the models of behavior that we want them to emulate leave a LOT of room for improvement.

I believe we can and must do better and that we must hold ourselves and our leaders, whether in politics, business, religion or anything else to a much higher standard.

What do you believe?

Or worse …. do you even care?

Someday you will.

In service and servanthood,

Harry

PS  Here is what David Rothkopf, a well-known Democrat, thinks of the current Democrat campaign - Reid's Romney smears an insult to voters. 

Sometimes the greatest insult of all to someone is when their intelligence has been insulted or they are being used but they don’t know it or don’t stand up to fight it.  But then again, people who suck it up incessantly without question make for the perfect electorate, don’t they?

Reading the Fine Print

Having been in business for more years than I care to admit, I have seen more than my fair share of contracts, NDAs and other binding covenants.

As someone who is known as Literal Man in some circles, I am fascinated and surprised by the number of people who circumvent their own legal guidance, glossing over the fine print and going it alone in creating, changing or signing such binding documents.

Too many people still sign these documents with the belief that the protection it offers to each party will never be needed.  There is an assumption that neither party will ever renege on the promises and commitments made to the other.   After all, there is an all-too-common reasoning that “why would one even enter into a professional relationship in the first place if one expected bad things to happen, therefore it must be safe”.

Pete Seeger once said

“Do you know the difference between education and experience?  Education is when you read the fine print; experience is what you get when you don't.”

If only human nature allowed us to execute every relationship so innocently and so perfectly with the notion that any disagreement could be easily resolved over a cup of coffee.

That’s why I have been watching President Obama with some curiosity lately as he struggles to bring the economic woes of the US under control.

Many US citizens are unaware of a little-known directive that could prove to be interesting as the next election draws closer.

Specifically ….

The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive (National Security Presidential Directive NSPD 51/Homeland Security Presidential Directive HSPD-20, sometimes called simply "Executive Directive 51" for short), created and signed by United States President George W. Bush on May 4, 2007, is a Presidential Directive which claims power to execute procedures for continuity of the federal government in the event of a "catastrophic emergency". Such an emergency is construed as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."

The presidential directive says that, when the president considers an emergency to have occurred, an "Enduring Constitutional Government" comprising "a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President," will take the place of the nation's regular government.

There are a few other fascinating components to this directive as well, namely:

1. The powers bequeathed to the “Enduring Constitutional Government” allow the government to forego elections to maintain leadership continuity as the nation moves out of crisis.
2. The process for cancelling the directive should it be invoked are not publically defined.
3. The person(s) with the authority to revoke the directive are not publically defined.
4. The majority of the contents of the directive (as with most presidential directives) including the rights of the people and the powers bequeathed to the acting government are considered classified under the auspices of “national security” and cannot be viewed by most people, including members of Congress.

I added the underline for emphasis.  I believe that we are already in an extraordinary situation with an economic crisis that is disrupting the nation and in fact, the entire world.  The President of the United States is in a position to execute this directive right now should he be so inclined.

I wouldn’t have given it much thought until I heard this comment from North Caroline Governor Purdue today when she was discussing the economy:

This is what she said:

"You have to have more ability from Congress, I think, to work together and to get over the partisan bickering and focus on fixing things. I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won't hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover. I really hope that someone can agree with me on that. The one good thing about Raleigh is that for so many years we worked across party lines. It's a little bit more contentious now but it's not impossible to try to do what's right in this state. You want people who don't worry about the next election."

Her handlers later claimed she was making a joke or intentionally overhyping this scenario to highlight how voters perceive our legislators.

Sadly, she wasn’t laughing when she delivered it, neither was anyone who heard it and the function she was speaking at wasn’t a stand-up comedy competition.

In fact, I find the remark quite intriguing and leads me to believe that it may have been discussed in private (whether seriously or half-heartedly is another matter), which suggests that the option has been explored.  Perhaps someone was testing the waters to see how the comment would be received.

In a world of ever-increasing complexity, challenge, paranoia and over-analysis by the media, one has to be very careful citing an option that many Americans would not like but which is legally within the President’s right to use.

Which brings me back to understanding the fine print.

Any time a business or individual is in difficulty in a contractual relationship, it is normal to review any binding covenants to review one’s options in order to bring about the best solution possible from the standpoint of the party reviewing the covenants.

As President Obama looks at what is happening in the economic world, how the economic engines haven’t responded to classic adjustments and a Republican stance that he is very unhappy with, he is looking at all his options with an eye towards solving the problems in the best way that he can visualize.

Executive Directive 51 is within his right to use, whether we like it or not.

Frankly, many normal people out there would look at this option and would use it.

I would if I thought that my ideas were the best ones available and I thought that the options of my opponent would spin the country deeper into catastrophe.  You might also if you were the President. 

Over the years, as politicians have gently (and sometimes not so gently) changed the laws that govern the land, many citizens never bothered to read the fine print of the legislation, assuming that “the details” weren’t important.

And now even if we wanted to get to the fine print, we are not permitted.

As Andy Rooney once said:

“Nothing in fine print is ever good news”.

What the directive would mean to the country, the freedoms and rights within the country and the future of the world’s greatest democracy is unknown.

But as always, that’s what we get for ignoring the fine print for too long.  It puts us into interesting territory.

Derek Bok once said:

“If you think education is expensive, try ignorance”.

It is highly likely that the coming months will teach us just how much our ignorance of the evolution of our government and economic models have and will cost us.

Thinking back to Seeger and Bok, let’s hope our education is not too painful an experience and that the final experience is a positive one.

In service and servanthood,

Harry

PS I was curious to see, as I watched Chris Wallace interview Rep Mike Simpson (R – ID) on Fox News Sunday on the morning of Nov. 6 / 11 when Rep. Simpson said, and I quote “"We've got to put aside our elections to solve this problem” when referring to the challenges facing the nation.  Very interesting.

Leaders Serve Others–Not Themselves

Another mid-term election has come and gone in the US and amongst all the celebration, lamentations over losses and talk of change, there is another dialogue that is less exciting to hear.

It is the dialogue focused around “We the insert party name here Party will focus on the next two years in preparation for the next election”.

They are focused on future events that are critical to their personal needs instead of focusing on the important tasks at hand that are key to the futures of those whom they serve.

Leaders, whether they be within corporations, governments or any other institution, exist to serve others and to exert appropriate levels of influence in the course of serving others.  They serve others in order to maximize the potential of their organization and the team members within the organization and in turn, to maximize the product or service that their organization provides.  They also exist to represent the needs of others.  In the case of the US, 330 million people cannot fit into the Capitol Building.

When a leader is more focused on the leadership position itself and not on the people they serve, then they are merely self-serving individuals who seek the position for their own gain at the detriment of others. 

After the mid-term election, the Democrats are expressing concern about President Obama’s chances for winning re-election in 2012.

What they should be focused on is the state that the country is in.  The US, a great nation with unlimited potential, is mired down with a number of challenges that are a millstone around its neck, preventing it from reaching it greatest potential.

To the Democrats, I say “show us that you care about the country and can put the country before your own personal needs”.

As I am an equal opportunity critic, Sen. Mitch McConnell, leader of the Senate Republicans, recently said: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”

To the Republicans, I say “You’ve got a lot to address within the nation – focus on that and worry less about who you think should sit in the President’s chair”.

Neither side seems focused on what they should be focused on – serving the people.  It appears that they are focused on their own needs.

If a leader’s focus becomes entirely centered around the needs of the leader; attaining power, keeping it or getting it back if lost, then we need to find new leaders.

When it comes to attaining and retaining the title of “leader”, we must let their time in office be based on their actions on behalf of those whom they serve and not allow them to be focused on actions solely focused on retaining the title.

Let their actions speak so loudly that we cannot hear what they are saying.

When this happens and they truly serve others, they win and so do we.

And so we support them as we should ….

…. as long as we see them serve the needs of those whom they exist to serve.

In service and servanthood,

Harry

For my Musings-in-a-Minute version of “Leaders Serve Others – Not Themselves”, please click here.