Newfoundland Government: Defying My Rituals of Optimism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is not my way.

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

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

“Coincidence?”, I wondered.

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

It is a place of unrivalled natural beauty.

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

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

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

Why is this?

Should this become the new slogan for the Province?

Hope: May not be warranted at this point.

Where Does One Begin?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I could ask these and many more questions.

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

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

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

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

The question is:

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

The Bottom Line

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

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

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

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

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

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

To those people, I apologize.

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

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

The former is much less painful.

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

If you disagree with me, spare me your opinions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’m not sure.

What do you think?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Addendum - Another Opinion

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

The article is here - Get Out If You Can.

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

---

Addendum 3 - Final Thoughts - April 28, 2016

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

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

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

---

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?

---

PC Party and Blair Houston–Isn’t Honesty Still the Best Policy?

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

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

[Author note: There are important addendums following this post, particularly addendums 2 and 3]

Dear PC Party of Alberta / Blair Houston (Candidate for Calgary-Foothills):

While a lot of my readers in Alberta have been enjoying (or hating me for) my occasional musing about the PC Party of Alberta and the missteps it has taken in recent years, writing about you has become a little boring for me and I would rather move on if you don’t mind.

However, I can’t move on because I see political leadership as an essential component for creating a strong future for citizens and when I see flaws in political leadership, I know said flaws, if allowed, will fracture the future for the people that the politician and political Party claim to serve.

As a long-time conservative, it matters to me where conservatives stand, what we represent, why we are allegedly the best choice and when we make mistakes (and we all do), what we intend to do to fix them.

When the Calgary-Foothills election was called, I asked you and Mr. Houston publicly what had been learned from mistakes in the past general election and how the Party will re-engage the hearts, minds and votes of the voters.  After all, to win the vote, one must influence the mind of the voter and to influence the mind, one must touch the hearts of those voters.  As a long time strategy person on Wall St., this seems obvious to me – that a mea culpa and a new strategy are necessary to regain the support of the people.

When I asked the question, I received insults which I found amusing enough to write about here PC Party of Alberta–Proving Einstein and Churchill Right? and here PC Party of Alberta–Who Will Bell the Cat?.

However, I never received a reply from the candidate or the Party specifically answering my questions or concerns.

Now a story is circulating about Mr. Houston’s alleged resume embellishment, where he claims to have gone to the University of California, a highly prestigious institution, while his campaign manager admits that he went to the College of the Desert (a two year technical school).  Here’s an important note – most people who have attended the University of California note the specific campus as many campuses have prestigious reputations of their own (e.g. UCLA, UC, Berkeley, etc).

While I’m sure the College of the Desert is a fine institution and in fact, there is nothing wrong with having attended such a school, in the private sector where I live, intentional resume embellishment for the sake of employment / personal promotion is grounds for dismissal.

That aside, you both have dodged the question in the media about Mr. Houston's education credentials which brings the same old question to mind:

When will honesty and transparency become a part of the PC Party in its alleged desire to rebuild itself or are they just clichés to hide a desire for status quo under the guise of something different?

Or ….

Should we just give up asking any politician for honesty and transparency in the first place?

If the claims are true and you are going to steamroll ahead anyway, then we are in the process of watching another dishonest person run for office.  If that’s the case, the PC Party hasn’t changed and honesty is still a rare commodity within the Party.

If the claims are true, then Mr. Houston should do the honorable thing and step aside unless he has an excellent reason for the discrepancy.  To admit such a discrepancy, whether he decides to continue running for office or not, would take a lot of courage but would be the right thing to do.

If the claims are not true, then one can make them go away instantly by merely responding to them.

And finally, to at least publicly respond to the accusation would show some level of accountability and responsibility to the public.

Because if we don’t have honesty, courage, accountability and responsibility in our political candidates and our political parties, what do we have?

And if we don’t have that, we don't have anything and neither should any Party claiming to want to represent our best interests.

Mr. Houston, please say something, otherwise you don’t deserve anything.  You claim to want to be the voice of the people – let’s here you speak when the people ask you questions.

Your integrity has been called into question – defend it otherwise other people will define it.

Yours most sincerely,

A citizen who worries about the future we are creating for our children.

---

In service and servanthood,

Harry

PS The difficulty with silence is that it usually (not always) suggests that an inconvenient truth has been spoken.  Human beings have a tendency to fill in the blanks when there is a vacuum of comment / information / response, often to the detriment of the person who has little to say in their own defense when others have much to say about them.

Addendum 1 – A Call For Honesty

The Calgary Herald ran a piece on Mr. Houston for the Calgary Municipal election in 2013 (found here).

Ironically, he cited the importance for “respect earned by honesty” and for the need for people “to have faith in politics again”.

It’s hard to know if he believes these things based on the afore mentioned musing.

(click on image for larger version)

---

Addendum 2 – Post Debate Conversation – August 24, 2015

I attended the debate in the Calgary-Foothills riding tonight with the hope of requesting clarity on this item.

I submitted a question regarding this to the moderators but it was included in the questions which were considered to be attack questions and so was rejected.  This is what I tweeted when I heard this:

Since Mr. Houston was unavailable after the debate, I stopped by the campaign table set up outside the debate area and asked his staff why the brochures on the table still imply that he graduated from a school that he in fact, did not graduate from.

The nice lady at the table stammered for a bit, suggested that he had graduated from there (which I refuted) and she suddenly had another answer.  She told me that the truth was that he had started to go to school at the University of California (didn’t know which campus which is still curious as previously noted) and that his mother had died while attending and therefore he had returned home.

While this is unfortunate if true, I told her “But you imply in the bio that he graduated from there so this doesn’t make sense.  In addition, if this is the truth, then why don’t you just say that to the press and to the many people who are concerned about his honesty and integrity and settle it once and for all.  All it takes is one statement that says ‘I went to the College of the Desert and took some courses at the University of California but had to leave because my mother died’ and it becomes a non-issue.  Allowing confusion over his education credentials to grow this way, if this is in fact a true story, creates a vacuum of information which is likely to be filled by speculation that will likely not go in his favor.”

She said “You should have been been his campaign manager” to which someone standing nearby, listening to the conversation, said “To hell with that – he should have been Harry’s campaign manager.”

Here’s another idea.  If a candidate is discovered to have some “ambiguity” in how their education credentials are presented but the issue is admitted and corrected as soon as it becomes known, the candidate can actually leverage the correction as “Look at how honest and forthright I am”.  Some strategy people I know would take this one step further and leverage the death of the parent to tug at the heartstrings of the voters (this is a morally questionable strategy but happily used by some).  Unfortunately, this strategic opportunity was passed over by the candidate. 

If there is concern about how a “lack of education” would be perceived, I couldn’t care less.  I have worked for Bill Gates, Larry Ellison and others and they didn’t have degrees when starting / growing their companies.  Formal education is fine but it is a human being’s inherent wisdom, knowledge, business savvy, communication skills, listening skills, collaboration abilities, life skills and other things that matter.

I have no idea if her story is even true, especially the way it was told to me after I refuted the first story she told me.  It may be a sad, true story or it may be a fabrication.  For the many universities that I have taken the occasional class from, I do not claim to have “attended” the institution because it would likely create some confusion as to my education credentials.  For those classes, I note them as “class x completed from institution y” so as to not imply that I obtained degrees from those institutions.  If Mr. Houston had intended to attend full time and didn’t convocate, there is nothing wrong with merely stating that.

During the debate tonight, Mr. Houston claimed to be a “relationship builder”.  He and his campaign team have a long ways to go to better manage public expectation using effective communication.  I and others asked him and the Party several times for clarity and they never even bothered to answer (something that would have taken a minute or less).

As I noted before, we can define our reputation or allow others to define it for us.

The nice lady at the table said that he chose not to address these concerns because he felt that he didn’t need to.

When one makes this choice, one has chosen to allow others to define who they are, a move that is not very astute or strategic in the political world, sending the wrong message to potential voters while simultaneously projecting an air of arrogance or incompetence.

Bottom Line - Control the Message

Maybe if people like myself and others keep giving these guys free consulting advice, that they will finally use it, otherwise they can continue to produce the result they are producing.

---

Addendum 3 – The Mutability of Human Values – August 26, 2015

I was told by PC Party execs and some MLAs that the resume embellishment is known but that it is important that the candidate stay in the race anyway without a public correction since officially addressing the issue may damage his chances.

This suggests to me that the human value of honesty is mutable and wavering within these individuals, being something that can be paraded around when convenient / useful but can be modified or ignored when required.

What does this say about politicians and political parties?

What does this say about us if we accept it?

Does it remove our right to complain when individuals let us down later, when we suddenly learn all over again that their values and ours aren’t in alignment?

Why do we care more when the politician lets us down after being elected instead of caring more about the details of the people before we elect them?

Politicians rely on the apathy, indifference and ignorance of the electorate.

What does this say about them?

What does this say about us?

---

Addendum 4 – Questioning the Strategy – August 28, 2015

Watching the lackluster performance of Mr. Houston in several debates and recognizing that he is a perpetual candidate who has ran for various seats over the years without winning any of them, I wonder why the PC Party chose him over a “ringer”, especially if the riding is as important to the Party as they claim.

Is this a strategic failure on the part of someone within the PC Party or did they believe or fear they were going to lose despite their desire for a win, thus not wanting to sacrifice a more important player?

Only a select few know.

Banks: Protecting Yourself From the Invisible - Ignorance is Bliss But Only For the Moment

Knowledge is power – Francis Bacon

Knowledge is power only if man knows what facts not to bother with. - Robert Staughton Lynd

Knowledge is power. Information is power. The secreting or hoarding of knowledge or information may be an act of tyranny camouflaged as humility. - Robin Morgan

[Important updates are at the bottom of this blog post]

Some years ago, I attempted to use my US-bank issued credit card in NYC and was surprised to discover that it had been disabled.  Calling the bank, I discovered that copies of the card had been used in Germany, the US and Brazil within a two-hour span the previous day.  In the argument that ensued on the phone, where the call center person insisted that I must have been in Germany the previous day and just didn’t remember it, I reminded them that it was physically impossible to have gotten to three countries that far apart in two hours and she finally agreed and told me a new card would arrive in two days.  I didn’t understand the argument anyway since it was their suspicion of fraudulent use that had caused the card to be killed in the first place.

The next day I received a call from the bank telling me that when the new card arrived I was to destroy it because it had already been compromised and that a third card would be sent.

I naturally assumed it must have gotten lost in the mail (thereby creating an opportunity for compromise) and so you can imagine my surprise when the now-dead replacement card arrived the next day with the envelope security seal still in place.  The card had not been intercepted and so it was obvious that it had been compromised at point of origin.  When I called the bank to understand what was going on (part of my profession is in the area of technology security architecture on Wall St), I was told it was an internal matter and that the details were none of my business.

A few years later, I had a considerable sum of money drained out of an account of a US bank, had it replaced and then had the same cycle of events repeated a short time later.  When I asked the bank what was happening, I was told it was none of my business.  However, when I informed them that I was calling the police, they relented and explained what was happening.  It was sweet, simple and frightening.

Here’s how it works.  A person presents the teller with a group of bogus payroll checks written out to a bunch of people.  The checks are knowingly drawn against a valid account in the bank that is known to be empty.  The teller, who is in on the scam, processes all the checks and pays out cash to the person.  When the bank reconciles the checks at night, they realize that all the checks are NSF and they reach into each person’s account to take the money back (since they assume they have already paid THAT person cash earlier in the day and are therefore taking the bank’s money back and leaving it to that person to deal with the NSF check that they allegedly cashed but in reality have no knowledge of).

The bank wouldn’t explain this until I brought the police in and secured bank surveillance video.  Until that moment, what was happening was none of my business according to the bank, even though it took a couple of weeks of hassle, paperwork and affidavits every time to prove that I hadn’t taken the cash and wasn’t  trying to defraud the bank.  During the first incident, one of the bank support people even suggested “Maybe your wife is taking the money and not telling you.  How strong is your marriage?”

I and a number of other people in that bank were guilty until proven innocent every time one of these incidents occurred.

In the investigation, the bank manager admitted that this happens a lot but “It’s ok, the customer always gets their money back”.  This may be so from their perspective but in addition to the inconvenience, someone is paying for the reimbursement of my money since the bank doesn’t eat the loss.  Eventually, despite CDIC, FDIC and other insurance vehicles, the responsibility for paying for it eventually trickles back to the customer.

Meanwhile in Alberta …..

A few days ago, I received two calls from my bank in Alberta.  I ignored the calls initially because the caller ID said “Alaska”, so I assumed it was a scam call or a wrong number.  When I finally played the voicemail, it said “I needed to get to a branch immediately”.  It sounded like a scam so I called the bank and they confirmed that “yes, it is imperative that you get to your branch immediately”.  When I asked “why?”, I was told politely that it was none of my business.

I went to the branch which was filled with people getting their cards replaced so I knew this wasn’t a one-off incident affecting just me.  When I asked the teller what was going on, she told me that she wasn’t allowed to tell me and that all cards (debit or credit) I had with the bank should be replaced immediately.

I asked if the cards were being skimmed (since such information would help me  avoid certain vendors or locations), if my online account had been compromised (requiring me to change my login credentials), if the bank had been compromised by an outside entity or if an internal miscreant had gotten up to no good.

I was politely told it was none of my business but as a precaution, I should change my PIN daily.  “Daily?”, I asked, “What is going on that you are recommending this?”

“I can’t tell you”, she replied.

Since I had been out of province the previous week, I asked the teller “How could I have gotten to a branch last week when this bank has none where I was?  What would happen then?  Can you kill my cards and get new ones to me where I was?”

Her answer was “No – we can’t do that.  We would try to figure something out.”

How comforting.

I asked on Twitter what the issue was and was told very politely that “We take security seriously and for this reason, we can’t tell you”.  My email to customer support politely asking for details went unanswered.

The bottom line from the bank:

“Be vigilant against a threat that we won’t tell you about.  It doesn’t matter – you always get your money back so why do you care?”

It reminds me of all the times Homeland Security would tell us to be very careful in a certain part of Manhattan.  When we would ask “What are we looking for?” we’d be told that we can’t tell you but let us know when you see something unusual or abnormal.  It’s NYC – what do you define as “normal”?

It also reminds me of the time when a bank that I was consulting to was allowing its consultants to host a porn site on the same servers as our customer-facing websites.  I reminded senior officials that not only was this not legal, ethical or moral, a compromise of the porn site (since porn sites are favorite targets for attacks) would reveal a smorgasbord of client information from the bank.  The bank indicated that “what customers don’t know won’t hurt them”.  They finally took the porn site down when the threat of a public leak became apparent.

So security wasn’t the issue – public relations was.

The Bottom Line

Security in our society, whether it be our physical safety, the safety of our bank accounts or anything else, begins when we are informed and when the institutions we work with are transparent, forthcoming and honest.  We can’t make intelligent choices if we don’t know what threatens us.

The suggestion that revealing some “secret” to the public would enable the criminal or tell the criminal that “you are onto him / her” doesn’t hold water.

Here’s a newsflash – the criminals already know how to do whatever they want.  In fact, they are likely thinking about compromises that we haven’t even thought of yet so they are actually ahead of the people and organizations that they are targeting.  They also know that the likelihood of getting caught these days is slim, making what they are doing very lucrative and risk-free from their perspective.  For every large-profile case proudly trumpeted by law enforcement as “solved”, many more are not solved in time (or solved at all) until the damage done is significant.

Groups like Anonymous and groups backed by other governments hack into government agencies like CSIS, the NSA and other groups at-will.  It’s time to be honest with people that total security doesn’t exist.  Even things like air gaps within technology architecture have been compromised.

The reality is that revealing cracks in security is very bad for business and for consumer / public confidence.  The first institution that can openly demonstrate that they are secure will be able to garner quite a bit of business from their competitors.

Well …. maybe – the reality is that security of anything is impossible.  We accept freedom and flexibility and in exchange, we trade away privacy and security.  Since this is our reality, society would be more secure if we worked together instead of the organizations who are charged with protecting us and our “stuff” forgetting about who works for whom.

As for my bank, all of my cards are chipped and yet banks insist that chipped cards have not and cannot be compromised.

Uh huh.

Here’s another newsflash – the chip technology was compromised before the banks finished rolling it out. Not only does the chip not protect you from anything, but technology exists to allow people to lift your card info from your pocket, wallet or purse without them ever seeing your cards (read Flaw in New “Secure” Credit Cards Would Allow Hackers Steal $1M Per Card).

When we can have an honest, transparent conversation, maybe then we can start working together towards a better society, each of us protecting ourselves and the other as a result of this dialog.

Until then, we will dance around security and privacy until something really bad happens.

And then we will all act surprised, angry, indignant, outraged or anything else.

But we will only have ourselves to blame, having accepted “none of your business” as a perfectly valid response to “What is happening?”, “Why did it happen” or “What are you doing to prevent it or mitigate my risk or exposure?”

What do you think of that?

With all of the enhanced technology, processes, methodologies and frameworks in the IT industry, you would think that we would be safer now than ever before but the reality is that we are less secure today than we were 20 years ago.

I’d tell you more but it’s none of your business.

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Addendum – A Response – July 30, 2015

In all transparency, the financial institution in question sent me a note after this blog post was published:

Thank you so much for reaching out to us, I truly value the time you put to send us this note.

We’ve identified that there may be a compromise in an area that you’ve used your debit card. For this instance we’ve reached out to many clients to be proactive and have their cards replaced with a new pin number.

I apologize for the lack of information around this because we’ve also recognized that the areas and stores affected are victims as well. This is a precautionary measure as we want to protect our direct clients as much as we can.

Hope this sheds some more light.

I appreciate the note but have a few observations regarding it which I sent back to the bank:

1. It would be useful if the tellers, people on the phone and on social media could have explained this – it would have avoided some confusion.
2. It still doesn’t explain why I need to continue to change my PIN daily even though I have a new card.  It is as if they are anticipating that I will have new transactions in compromised areas.
3. I was told that all debit AND credit cards need to be replaced.  This references debit cards only.
4. Pursuant to the previous point, they don’t tell me where the issue is.  I understand protecting “other victims” including businesses and areas but if we are destined to conduct other transactions in known compromised areas, I and other customers will merely recreate our problems since we don’t have enough info to avoid problem areas.
5. The teller did admit that a specific range of card numbers was affected.  A specific range of card numbers is not the same as a random selection of customers and so the information is not consistent and potentially suspect until clarified.
6. The person on the phone said that if I didn’t receive notification of compromise for other cards, then I shouldn’t change them.  The person at the bank said I must change them regardless.  Erring on the side of safety is important but clarity and consistency in message promotion is equally important and less confusing, especially when no other details are being offered.

Knowledge is only power when sufficient knowledge is provided AND it is applied.

One of the key ways to acquiring knowledge is through asking questions that matter.  We tend to focus on asking questions about the unimportant while not asking them about the things that matter (or we accept an answer that we know is insufficient but we don’t want to press the point).

Accountability, transparency and knowledge are created and shared when the right questions are asked and appropriate answers are demanded.

Do you ask questions or do you not care?

Does it matter?

Are you sure?

How do you know?

Addendum 2 – Insider Update – July 31, 2015

In speaking to my sources in banking and law enforcement, they have indicated that a sweeping federal investigation encompassing at least 5 Canadian banks is in progress.  I was given the names of the banks but cannot reveal them here due to the nature of the investigation.

It is because the federal investigation is in progress that the institution noted here cannot reveal the areas / vendors involved, etc.  Sadly, because of this constraint, the problem has a slight risk of spreading to new victims while the investigation is going on (or ensnaring original victims).  There is some concern also about whether the losses will be covered under CDIC or not but that is a subject for someone else to debate.

That being said, secrecy around such investigations while they are in progress makes perfect sense and is often essential for the successful conclusion of the investigation.

What makes better sense for this institution in this case is to just tell the truth.  By doing so, they don’t reveal any secrets, they don’t endanger or compromise the investigation and they can assure customers using facts that the right people are looking at the issue effectively and appropriately.

Transparency works a lot better than avoidance and when done effectively, intelligently and strategically, provides the information necessary to maintain the strength of a business / customer relationship.

It just requires a little effort and resonates better than “none of your business”, especially when it’s your money, security, privacy, etc.

To Demand Better of Your Politicians, Demand Better of Yourself

Those who stand for nothing fall for anything. - Alexander Hamilton

One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. - Plato

What is tolerated today becomes accepted tomorrow. - Various Attribution

An interesting conversation this week on the Facebook page of a member of the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta reminds me of why we have the politicians we have.

It’s because we accept anything they give / tell us.

And while we like to rant and rave about what politicians allegedly do to us as we claim victimhood at the hand of their alleged incompetence or corruption (as some people claim), the reason politicians do what they do boils down to one thing.

It’s because we accept anything they give / tell us.

On the previously mentioned Facebook page this week, there was a discussion around the right-leaning parties of the Alberta political sphere and the possibility (or impossibility) of the two primary parties, the Wildrose Party and the Progressive Conservative Party, reuniting against the left-leaning NDP Party currently in power.

While the conversation was interesting and mostly respectful, I asked a couple of questions, specifically around whether people can come to an agreement regarding the definition of the words “progressive”, “conservative” and “values”, since failure to come to an agreement on what these words mean would prevent any such alliance from happening.

This sparked a healthy exchange until a former member of the Alberta government proceeded to give their views.  The individually waxed poetically about such concepts as principles, values, forgiveness and acceptance and the need “to do better and be better for, and, to each other.”

I thought it was a pretty cool, unifying message although one thing remained stuck in my craw from the previous election loss, a rumor that had been attached to this MLA and which suggested or implied unethical or potentially illegal behaviour and so I asked if the rumor were true.  There was no issue with stating it publicly since it had been rolling around in the public space anyway.

[Background Note] In my world and in the public-facing role I have, questions come in my direction every day, some friendly and inquisitive and some accusatory / confrontational.  When one accepts a public-facing role, one does one’s best to answer every question respectfully and as fact / data-based as possible.

When I asked for clarity on the rumor that was already in the public space, the former MLA and others supporting this person immediately demanded that my question be removed and made the demands in such a way that the person who owned the Facebook wall felt threatened as exhibited in this text exchange between the Facebook wall owner and myself.

The reason he gave for deleting my request for clarity was also intriguing.

So the mere act of asking for clarification on something being discussed about a former politician (who has a desire to be re-elected) in the public space provides people with a reason to feel fearful of asking for clarity or for allowing the request to stand.  This is especially intriguing given that the person being questioned had just cited the need “to do better and be better for, and, to each other.”

Meanwhile an executive within the PC Party texted me this message as he observed the events that unfolded.

I wonder how a Party can expect to rebuild itself on values, transparency and the like when people who request clarity on same are threatened or an effort is made to intimidate them into silence.

The Bottom Line

While many tout our democracy as the greatest form of government on the planet, they forget that the key elements of it need to be constantly, consistently and vigorously earned, re-earned, defended and championed.

One of the tenets of our democracy is the right to request transparency in the actions of those who claim to represent our best interests in our legislatures.

However, a dual crime of democracy occurs when someone who claims to serve us dares to shout us down instead of providing a response to requests for clarity AND the person being shouted at acquiesces without resistance or reason.

When these things happen, our democracy is in danger of producing a result that is not as ideal as that which we desire or deserve.

In such situations, if our democracy or the results it produces is tarnished in any way, we can’t blame the people we put in office nor can we criticize their actions because the reality is that we put them in office and if we accept their actions and keep re-electing them anyway, we have only ourselves to blame.

After all, when we have high expectations of our government and its elected representatives and they appear to be disappoint us consistently, maybe we need to re-examine our expectations of ourselves before criticizing the people we elect.

Unfortunately, I think it is always easier to hold others to a higher standard rather than ourselves since dodging responsibility and accountability requires much less effort when we expect both to be exhibited by others and not ourselves.

What do you think?

Does it matter?

What are you doing about it?

Forget asking what a politician stands for – what do YOU stand for?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Addendum For the history buff who wondered if I chose the Alexander Hamilton quote deliberately on the 211th anniversary of his death in a duel, I can assure you that it was pure coincidence.

My friends at the Bank of New York used to joke that on the day he died, he told employees of the Bank that he founded not to do anything until he got back.  Hey .. it’s their joke … not mine!  Great people over there with a great sense of humor.

---

Addendum 2 – Things That Make You Go Hmmmm – July 12, 2015

I received a cease and desist letter from a legal firm representing an unrelated person who thought I was writing about them.  Oooops – guilty as charged for a crime as of yet unknown by anyone except the perpetrator.  I guess there are more skeletons present than people are aware of.

As a friend of mine pointed out today, Israeli police sometimes offer something of interest to see who takes the bait, referring to the process as the integrity test.  The party drawn out is clearly guilty – one just needs to figure out the crime.

In the spirit of offering to help people as much as I can, I offer politicians the quick reference guide to lying as shown below.  Click on the image for a larger version.

---

Addendum 3 – Closing Thoughts – July 18, 2015

What I find interesting about the party in question is that many people who blocked progress before and who fought openness in order to prevent embarrassing truths from coming out are now the same people writing blogs about the importance of truth and openness while simultaneously still blocking the truth.

They wanted to be the hero then by preventing the truth from coming out, they want to be the hero now by pretending to offer enlightenment that is allegedly unknown to everyone else and they are attempting to be the hero of the future by keeping skeletons buried in the closet.

You can’t have it all.

---

Addendum 4 – I Guess I’m Not Done – August 12, 2015

With a by-election being called in Calgary-Foothills, I dared to ask what the strategy was to win the hearts, minds and votes of the people after the devastating loss by the PC party in May.

Here is one person’s response (click on the images for larger versions):

I guess the PC party (or at least the loudest people within it) have some learning to complete.

Why Politicians Fear (or Hate) People Like Me

Since we cannot change reality, let us change the eyes which see reality. - Nikos Kazantzakis

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one. - Albert Einstein

We live in a fantasy world, a world of illusion. The great task in life is to find reality. - Iris Murdoch

The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it. - George Orwell

I’m thinking about running an ad on Craigslist offering to sell the people of Alberta dead parrots.

Why?

Because as the election rhetoric (translation: BS, obfuscation, intentional misdirection, etc.) heats up in the Province of Alberta, people like me who study strategy (and people) for a living watch with a mix of amusement, sadness and disappointment as politicians fall over each other attempting to sell the equivalent of dead parrots to the people.

And it seems that too many people either won’t tell the politicians that they don’t want dead parrots, they are afraid to demand a living parrot or they don’t dare to demand something completely different than a parrot at all, living or deceased.

Oh sure, there is lots of complaining, bickering and the like but the specific, measurable, meaningful asks are few and far between.

With that, the typical exchange between politician and citizen tends to look more like Monty Python’s Dead Parrot Sketch, where a slick salesman sells an unsuspecting customer a dead parrot by waxing on about its positive attributes like its beautiful plumage.

Unfortunately for the people, they are often easily beguiled by such smooth talking individuals and shortly after “buying the dead parrot”, the people return to lamenting that their choice did not produce the result that they hoped for or desired.

Too many politicians don’t care about this, since they have bought themselves another term in which they hope to convince the citizenry that something great is being accomplished and if nothing else, they bought themselves another four years to do “whatever”.

And so the cycle repeats, with the same “customer” going back to the same “salesman” every four years and he / she again sells them something they don’t want or need.

Meanwhile, people like me come along and instead of succumbing to the polished, practiced, political patter, we ask questions like “Why?”, “How do you know?” and “What data / knowledge can you offer up to support your belief / intention?”

We tend to view politicians and their promises through lenses like this one (click on the diagram for a viewable version):

Unfortunately, when people like me do this, most politicians don’t stick around long to even attempt to answer our questions, with the assumption that we are not in the market for a dead parrot or anything else they are selling.

In fact, since we represent a threat to the dead parrot market, they work very hard to avoid us, discredit us, threaten us (yes – it happens) or to outshout us.

They reason that for every one of us who can’t be sold a dead parrot, there are thousands more who can be and are gullible enough to be convinced that it’s either the best thing ever or that there is nothing else out there anyway so they might as well settle for it.

And besides, they posit – even a dead parrot can look beautiful and valuable when positioned in the right way.

Are you in the market for a dead parrot?

Are you sure?

Because if you are not, it takes more than complaining out loud in coffee shops, on talk show radio and on social media streams to make this point clear to the people who would like to sell you one.

Otherwise you will end up squawking like a parrot – a lot of noise and wing flapping while the desired potential and result in government fades away ….. again.

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Addendum – Alberta PC Party Goes Down In Defeat - May 6, 2015

Former Premier Prentice guided to the PC Party to a crushing defeat in the Alberta election on May 5, 2015.  Those of us in the PC Party who warned the leadership about the importance of being honest with citizens, about being respectful and to use data instead of fear mongering were told to mind our own business.

I guess a few voters felt the same way also and made it their business to tell the PC Party what they thought of them.

To know the difference between confidence and arrogance is to walk the fine line between great results and embarrassment.

The PC Party just learned the difference.

Greg Clark–Politicians and the Importance of Optics

There is an optical illusion about every person we meet. - Ralph Waldo Emerson

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

I was speaking to someone the other day about politics in the 21st century and we were reminiscing fondly of a time when politicians steered clear of obvious conflicts of interest, perceived biases and the like.  While we often believed they were dirty or up to no good, we gave them the benefit of the doubt until someone marched forward with proof to the contrary and the politician faded into obscurity.

In the 21st century, politicians seem to take a different tact, not only not caring about how they are perceived but almost daring the electorate to say anything about specific thorny issues or in some cases, actively shouting down those who dare raise the spectre that something might be amiss. Examples such as Hillary Clinton’s involvement with Benghazi come to mind.

A little over a week ago, I mused about Greg Clark, head of the Alberta Party, where I wondered if his message of being different than other candidates was authentic or just old spin from a new politician.  That post can be found here - Greg Clark–A Refreshing Change Or Just Another Politician?

In that post, I explained how I was intrigued and disappointed in how his words and his actions did not appear to be in congruence and I couldn’t figure out whether he represented a refreshing change that is desperately needed in the political arena everywhere or if he was just another politician telling us what we wanted to hear so he could get elected.

Like many politicians, I found myself sitting on the fence, wondering if I could classify Mr. Clark as an authentic, refreshing change or more of the same and then I noticed this poll.

The poll shows Mr. Clark in a dead heat with the PC and Wildrose candidates, something I was intrigued by.

And then I noticed this little piece of information.

The poll was conducted by a small company in Calgary called BBOLD Public Relations.  That fact in itself doesn’t mean much until one examines things a little more closely and realizes that that organization once had an employee in common with the Greg Clark campaign.

That person is Stephen Carter, now a senior member of the Clark campaign and former President of BBOLD as noted on his LinkedIn profile.

When I tweeted about how intriguing and disappointing the optics of this presented, especially in absence of a truly independent, unbiased poll, some members of his campaign team responded asking me if I was making a judgement on his character.

I didn’t say it.

They did.

Mr. Carter himself responded with this tweet:

The response is disturbing because with it, I can’t tell if he isn’t smart enough to know the difference that proper optics makes or if he believes that I’m not smart enough to see through the lousy optics that this presents.

As we all know, statistics can be bent to anyone’s will.  They are often most (or only) believable when produced by people who have nothing to gain by what the data suggests or implies.  As a long time math guy on Wall St., I know only too well how to use data to manipulate public opinion.

And given this, it suggests to me that once again, politicians would rather brazen their way through lousy optics than avoid them in the first place.

The Bottom Line

When I made an observation about the optics of this poll, I wasn’t suggesting or implying anything about the character, morals or ethics of Mr. Clark as some people in his campaign suggested I might be.

However, when you don’t know someone personally, the only way you can attempt to understand who they are and what they represent is by the optics that they present to you as they attempt to define the interpretation of themselves that they would like you to have.

This should therefore serve as a warning that we need to be careful about the company that we keep.  Sometimes while we may be of strong character, the character we project is actually that of those who project it on our behalf.

And I think his campaign has a ways to go if his campaign dares to suggest that he represents a new wave of truth, honesty and transparency because from where I sit, he is starting to look a lot like the rest of the field – something we don’t need.

What do you think?

In service and servanthood.

Harry

PS Someone on Twitter shared this with me.

It raises many questions.

I leave it to you to find the answers.

Addendum – Alberta Party Comes Up Empty – October 29, 2014

The Alberta Party came up empty in all 4 by-elections in Alberta.  Oftentimes bravado is better directed towards more strategically positive thoughts, words and actions.

I wonder how honest the Alberta Party will be in its post mortems or if it will get distracted by the “second place is a win” mantra that many people embrace.

Unfortunately, in politics, there is only first place.  Discussion of trends, changing momentum and such is often irrational, unjustified, wishful thinking on the part of those who didn’t finish first.

The Difference Between Bad Luck, Coincidences and Poor Choices

“Coincidence is the word we use when we can't see the levers and pulleys.” - Emma Bull

“Destiny is a good thing to accept when it's going your way. When it isn't, don't call it destiny; call it injustice, treachery, or simple bad luck.” - Joseph Heller

America and its leaders have been fraught with a lot of “bad luck” these days.

When American citizens were attempting to get to the bottom of the Benghazi affair, then Secretary of State Clinton was suddenly overcome with a series of illnesses that continued until the clamour for justice died down and then suddenly she was well.

When people were wondering about what was going in Egypt and were calling Secretary of State Kerry’s focus into question, his wife was suddenly ill with an unknown illness that dominated the press until people stopped asking questions about Mr. Kerry’s choice of priorities.  Suddenly his wife was much better.

Yesterday as the President prepared to conduct a press conference to announce that our economy and its recovery still remained as mysterious and elusive as our ability to convert lead into gold, we had the tragedy of the Washington Naval Yard and amidst the focus on that, the President held his little-covered press conference anyway.  Few people heard the news of continued uncertainty regarding our economic situation or questioned why this important press conference wasn’t delayed out of respect for the event that was unfolding at the Naval Yard and so that more people could hear what was being presented.

Enter the conspiracist

Conspiracy people like Alex Jones and others cry foul over such things, saying that such events are intentionally orchestrated at the right moment to hide things from the American people.

For the third of my three examples, this would be a deep stretch unless one considers technology such as that which I wrote about in Experiencing the Voice of God.

We can accept that all of these events are pure coincidences.

We can take the conspiracy side and say they are all related and be swallowed up in the resulting paranoia.

Or we can admit that our world has gotten so complex, with so many events going on at once and with so many moving parts that it becomes impossible to connect the dots in the right order and with the appropriate inter-relationships …. if some dots should be connected at all.

It also becomes difficult to attribute the events to things that we have done … unless one steps back and looks at them in absence of the ill-informed propaganda that our news media presents as “information”.

Our world has outstripped our ability to understand it

The events of the world have assumed a life of their own and have exceeded the ability of their creators (us) to control, guide or predict them.  It is driving towards its own end point oblivious to our desires and actions to direct it elsewhere.

Don’t believe me?  Ask any politician what the impact will be of signing “legislation du jour” and they won’t be able to answer you outside of sharing their PR shtick.

And while people proclaim that gun control will prevent events such as yesterday’s tragedy in Washington DC or that bombing Syria will solve that “problem”, I suspect that things will continue to get more complex and not less when one discovers that much of today’s legislation and diplomacy are more of a best guess than a calculated strategic initiative with known outcomes.  The fact that the shooter in yesterday’s tragedy had weapons charges in his past and was also known to have psych issues when he passed an FBI background check in order to buy the weapon he used in the shooting and when he passed the Navy’s background check shows that more process and legislation doesn’t automatically fix anything.

Expecting things to get more difficult seems especially apparent when considering the adage “you get / attract what you focus on” and considering that the brunt of our government intellectual / financial focus is on military expenditures and the use of force domestically and abroad instead of improving ourselves in the areas of:

• education
• healthcare including in the area of mental health and disease prevention
• the poverty divide
• climate change
• clean water
• human population sustainability
• the technology singularity
• sustainable “clean” energy
• healthy food
• ** insert your own concern here **

I left one thing off the list, that being the ever-increasing surveillance that is taking place around the world.

Our leaders tell us that we need additional surveillance in order to be safe and to provide ourselves with an opportunity to focus on the detailed list above.

I think those leaders have their cause and effect backwards … intentionally in order to justify the military expenditures.

And there’s a reason for this.

If we had focused on that list almost exclusively, we wouldn’t have enabled or created many of the situations where we now need increased surveillance for our own safety.

However, the list of challenges I described has no easy solution or even a solution at all in some cases.

And so we stick with the one thing that we do very well and which we can control.

We build weapons.  Of all the things in the world, that is the one thing where we can predict the outcome of our actions and we are willing to invest the money to prove it.

For the rest of the items, we distract people from the fact that we are not solving them by producing feel-good studies that prove nothing or we actively seek opportunities to use our weapons, highlighting a “success” (and a justification for their use) while distracting us from the fact that more important things are not being solved.  Some have suggested that certain individuals will sometimes seed both sides of an argument so that people will be distracted, consumed or exhausted by the debate over how to fix things, eventually giving up or concurring that the problems are unsolvable.  Sadly, I have witnessed the latter technique being used successfully by some people.

Even when responding to Putin’s comment the other day that Americans shouldn’t be told that they are exceptional, a member of the US Senate responded by citing American victories in two world wars as proof of American exceptionalism.

I posit that Americans are exceptional in MANY non-military ways – why is our only response to Putin’s taunt tied to military victories (and old ones at that)?

Luck – good or bad based on perspective

People who seem to experience good luck constantly do so because they have sown the seeds that produce such luck.

Conversely, many people and companies who appear to have bad luck all around them discover upon closer examination that they have sown so much complexity and “bad karma” in their lives that bad luck is bound to return with seemingly greater-than-normal frequency and intensity.

And just as in classic accounting where we balance liabilities against assets, the truth is that one person’s bad luck is someone else’s good fortune.

So with the bad luck that America has experienced lately, it in fact is someone else’s good luck and is not entirely unpredictable.

Whose good luck it is and whose decisions are producing the “bad luck” are the questions that merit a closer examination.

The difficulty now is that we have passed the point of no return, where “the people” no longer have the means or even the right to question the priority of the people they elect and the seeds that they are sowing.

Since it’s no longer the elected official that make many of decisions, chasing after them for answers will not produce much satisfaction anyway.

And the sad truth is that pressing for such information may produce bad luck for the querent.

But that’s only coincidence, isn’t it?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Addendum

A friend of mine who has served as a senior advisor to multiple Presidents of the US indicated to me some time ago that the events that are taking place both domestically and internationally cannot and will not be stopped and that what we should prepare for is the transition through the coming difficult times.

The difficulty with this analysis is this.

Transitioning through difficult times is only possible when one knows what the difficult thing is that needs to be navigated through.

Otherwise, we are likely to experience a LOT of bad luck.

Or is that also just a coincidence?

The Voice of the Rebel

“People are afraid, very afraid of those who know themselves. The masses do not want to be disturbed even though they may be in misery.” – Osho

“Yeah with one foot in the grave and one foot on the pedal, I was born a rebel” - Tom Petty “Rebels”

I ask a lot of questions.

People who know me know that my two favorite questions are “Why?” and “How do you know?”. 

I have mused about questions, the need to ask them, how to ask them, etc., many times, including but not limited to the following posts:

Improving the Result

Facts –The Downfall of Many Dreamers

Asking Questions That Get Answered

The Most Important Question of All

Solving Mysteries–The Direct Approach

If My Question Offends You ….

If You Can’t Explain It, Don’t Do It

The Secret of the “Soothsayer”

What Do You Stand For?

Solving Puzzles–Follow the Breadcrumbs

Ouch …. that is only a partial list.  I didn’t realize that I wrote about this subject THAT many times. :-)

I don’t just ask these questions of others.  I ask them of myself …. daily … oftentimes hourly … sometimes more frequently and with far greater intensity than the manner in which I ask others.

I have discovered that when one asks a lot of questions, it makes a lot of people nervous, especially if they have something to hide or they have been asking the same questions but the answer is eluding them.  You always know that something is amiss when the mere existence of a question angers or frightens people.

I remember getting in some hot water on Wall St. once when I pointed out that a particular server, which was required by law to never be allowed to fail, had no source of redundancy at all.  I didn’t realize it had no redundancy but by asking if I could see the redundancy built into the architecture, I created quite a fuss.  The response was almost like “ Alert. Alert. The new guy has dared to ask the forbidden question.  Which is easier – fixing the server or killing the new guy”.  It was close but I won the coin toss. :-)

My persistent asking of questions has produced a Life that I am filled with gratitude for.  In fact, the blessings that have filled my Life often cause me to ask questions about that also!  Ahhhh, the mind of the restless querent. :-)

It has also produced its share of complexities.

For example, I have discovered that ….

1. Musing about emergency preparedness and the importance of it gets you on the Department of Homeland Security’s official reading list (hi guys) merely for discussing it.  I wonder if that means that all Mormons are on their list also.

2. Musing about why a politician would take the action they took gets you investigated by the Department of Justice (anti-terrorism group), who later give you an all clear when they discover that no lines were crossed (I could have told you that in advance, guys). :-)

3. Musing about projects that my former father-in-law (a USAF colonel, now deceased) worked on also attracts some interesting “fans”.  Some are nutbars – some are seriously powerful people who don’t like such musings.  When powerful people reach out, it is not very pleasant.

4. Some business people who become nervous when too many questions are asked make it their singular focus to resist the people who are asking the questions.  Sometimes their business goes out of business as a result because they either wouldn’t answer the question or they turned their focus entirely on burying the question instead of answering it.

5. Related to the previous point, some people would rather see their projects fail than answer difficult questions or allow them to be asked.

6. Witness protection is not as exciting as it appears to be in the movies, for you or your family.

7. Once you pass 100 death threats, you learn to tell the difference between the credible ones (requiring law enforcement action) and the drive-by nutbars.

8. When you point out gaps in security (national security, airline or otherwise), a thank you or a correction of the gap is more appropriate than resisting or burying it.  Problems that are not solved outright always manifest later – usually larger, more impactful and more significant than when they were pointed out.  I-told-you-so’s when people’s lives are at stake bring no satisfaction.

9. Politicians who serve the people and not their own needs are becoming increasingly rare.

10. To not ask questions where people are always fearful that the unspeakable question will eventually derail them makes some people very paranoid.  It’s like the time I was working in a highly politicized environment and had a grievance filed against me for being too respectful.  Why such a grievance?  Because, as I was informed, when one is respectful in a difficult environment, it must mean that you are up to something and so you should stop being respectful immediately so as to allay further suspicion.  I mused about the event here.

11. According to one priest, God hates me.  Apparently the priest has a red phone to the Upper Chamber and issued this edict when I asked a couple of questions about God.  That was when I discovered that asking questions in certain faiths is not permitted …. ever.

12. Hiding behind reasons like “need to know basis”, “national security”, “I don’t need to answer because I am the expert here” or “just because” cause many more questions to be asked.

13. There are many people who, not having the courage to ask their own questions, prefer to prod others to ask questions on their behalf (it’s safer and lower risk for them), ride on the coattails of those with more courage or think that people who ask such questions lead exciting lives and should therefore be glommed onto to bring excitement into their own Life.  They are unnecessary weight that will only slow you down, distract you or get you into trouble.  PS – some are genuinely crazy.

There are many others I have learned but that’s the fun list.

Despite my passion, I play by the rules

The amusing thing is that while I ask questions for a living as a strategy guy, my musings here aren’t  meant to embarrass, reveal security gaps, highlight potentially illegal acts or anything else. 

My questions are always respectful of boundaries and I do my best to be respectful of the feelings of others.  That being said, some people will go out of their way to be offended or intimidated.  Others have massive egos or other issues that call them to defend against anyone who might be perceived as a threat.  I can’t help those people and make no apologies for the impact my questions have on them.

I tend to be pro business (I am a Wall St’er after all), pro government, pro military, pro democracy and the like.  I don’t subscribe to conspiracy theories, I have a strong sense of “live and let live” and I don’t make other people’s problems my own just for the fun of it.  I also don’t support or endorse people who think they are above the law nor do I believe that breaking the law to protest it is a viable option.

I believe highly in honoring confidentiality and respecting the principle of trust.  I don’t share things confided in me or protected by legal covenants – EVER.

I believe that things like national security, emergency preparedness and lifting / helping others are things that we all play a role in – not just the government.

I do not believe in violence but I don’t think that constantly turning the other cheek solves anything either because people take advantage of timidity and weakness.

However …..

I also believe that it is important to think and not allow others to think for you or to form your opinions for you in absence of facts and data.

Sometimes a question is asked innocently, with no knowledge that others fear the question and will despise the querent as a result.

Sometimes one is intrigued by a subject and merely wants to learn more.

And sometimes one sees the emperor walking down the street with no clothing on and while everyone else marvels at his “beautiful clothing”, one feels compelled to cry out and point out that he is naked.

And as a result, some people will cry foul or claim to be a victim merely because the question has exposed something that they would prefer to remain buried.

The ones who cry out the loudest are the ones who need to be examined much more closely.  I refer to this as the Vatican Effect (aka the Streisand Effect):

The more noise someone makes trying to hide or refute something, the more Life they give it, requiring a closer investigation as a result.

Dan Brown’s “The Da Vinci Code” would probably have  died in obscurity had the Vatican not set up a committee to investigate and stymie the popularity of the book.  Of course many people wanted to see why the Vatican would do such a thing and the rest is history regarding Dan Brown’s success.

It is not our right nor do we have the time to question everything

Many things are none of our business or are not on our Path of Purpose and so to question everything becomes a waste of time (both our time and the time of others) or an abuse of privilege.

But when we as individuals, groups or nations stop asking questions completely, we stop learning.

When you stop learning, stop listening, stop looking and asking questions, always new questions, then it is time to die. - Lillian Smith

My questions often come in the form of cranial defibrillators.  But those are the best kind of all as Martin Luther King Jr. pointed out when he said:

Rarely do we find men who willingly engage in hard, solid thinking. There is an almost universal quest for easy answers and half-baked solutions. Nothing pains some people more than having to think.

And so to the many on the receiving end of my questions, I am sorry to say I’m not dead yet. :-)

And yes, I am a rebel.

But in George Lucas’ world, the rebels are the good guys. :-)

What do you think of that?

In service and servanthood,

Harry