What Doesn’t Kill You Makes You Stronger.

As I write this I am 35,000 feet over the Great Lakes heading east. Being stuck in a flying cigar tube with 100 people gives you a chance to pause – and to think. I have come to the conclusion that all of uncertainty n the world toady is going to make us better at running our businesses.

Like many business people I follow the news incessantly. I watch the six 0’clock news, have satellite Radio in my vehicle and live stream news to my cellphone. This news overload is in the hope I will be able to figure out what is going on in this world. So far it hasn’t worked.

So here are my three conclusions:

1)      It is time to let go. We can all lament the fact that oil is not at $130 dollars a barrel or that the economy is in tatters, unemployment at an all time high or that government seems to be acting completely irrationally. All good stuff for the six o’clock news but not much help in running a business.

We have been through times like these before and the only way to look is forward. I am convinced that this will end. When? Who knows? But rolling up in a ball and hiding under the covers ins not the answer.

I have committed that I am done worrying about the things I cannot change and focussing n those I can.

2)      The best defense is a good offense. The instinct, when entering tough water, is to batten down the hatches and hope the waves don’t swamp you. Great advice if you are captain of a ship but the absolutely worse idea when running a business. 

Being afraid is only going to lead to your business going down. Now is not the time to stop marketing – it is the time to increase it. If people don’t know you are in business you won’t get any and the business, your business is on the way to Davy Jones locker.  Now is the time to implement a social media program, the time to reach out to those 20% of our customers that give us 80-% of our business and the time to be innovative.

Canada may be struggling but there is a great big world out there and business is booming. It does mean getting on an airplane, going somewhere new, trying something bold. Nothing beats the rush of adrenalin that comes from, once again, running our business like true entrepreneurs. (Remember –when owning a business was fun?)

I am committed that, whatever happens, my business will not die the death of 1000 cuts. If we are going down, we are going down fighting.

3)       Business is about people – always has been – always will be. Because I am convinced my business is going to survive, even thrive, in these times I need good people. If you are a giant corporation, you can afford to lose people. (Well probably not but it can help the quarterly bottom line.)  I layoff one person and I have laid off 20% of my work force.

All of us have those things we said we needed to do someday, when we have time. Now is the time. Time to get the staff trained in that software we bought but no one had time to learn. Time to call on those customers we took for granted when times were good. Time to look in the mirror and say “How can I do things better.” Time to be a better leader and a better business person.

I am committed that layoffs stop now. It starts with my business – where I can make a difference. It has to start somewhere.

Someone hung up a sign in my office that said “Doing new things is easy – it is letting go of the old that is hard.” It is still there because I believe. The old days are behind us. As much as I love history that is what it is - history.

Now will someone let me out of this flying cigar tube so I can get started?

Norman Leach is the founder of Norman Leach & Associates, a boutique consulting business in Calgary Alberta that guides companies and non-profit organizations to their next level of success.  As a professional speaker and trainer Norman is in constant demand for his presentations and seminars on leadership, business development and business strategy.

Media Release

Chamber of the Americas

2015-12-07

Canada and Mexico Benefit from World Trade Organization Ruling against US

“COOL Ruled Discriminatory – Costs US Billions”

On Dec 7^th the World Trade Organization ruled that the US had discriminated against Canada and Mexico in the way it handled labeling requirements for meat imports into the country.

“We have always known that the County Of Origin Labelling (COOL) provisions were in violation of both the letter and the spirit of NAFTA,” said Maritza Meneses, Executive Director for the Chamber of the Americans in Canada. “The World Trade Organization ruling hopefully brings an end to this irritant between the three NAFTA countries.”

Both Canada and Mexico argued, successfully, that the American requirement that meat can only be sold if it was labelled with the details of where the animal was born, raised and slaughtered was, in fact a type of non-tariff trade barrier making it difficult for Canadian and Mexican producers to sell their meat in the US.

The World Trade Organization, after seven years of deliberation decided that Canada can apply $780 million in retaliatory tariffs and Mexico $225 million.

“If the US Congress does not repeal the COOL legislation these penalties can be applied again and again,” explained Meneses.

According to media reports both Canada and Mexico could start imposing the sanctions in December – with the likely first target being milk that is purchased from the US by both countries. Also effected would be US beef sales that will face tariffs as high as 100%.

If the US government does not respond tariffs could be applied to grains, fruits and manufactured goods produced in the US.

“We honestly hope the US government will react quickly to this ruling so that tariffs will not be required. NAFTA works and these disputes get in the way of economic prosperity for all of us,” concluded Meneses.

Chamber of the Americas:

The Chamber of the Americas is a not-for-profit organization with a simple, profoundly important goal: To help you make the most of your business opportunity in the Americas. The Chamber’s mission is to facilitate commerce and understanding between the businesses and governments of the Western Hemisphere. We connect industries, businesses, and investors with each other, and with the government sector, and disseminate the information, education and cultural knowledge vital to the advancement of our collective goals.

-30-

Contact Info:

Maritza Meneses, Executive Director

Chamber of the Americas – Canada

403-710-9683

Maritza@chamberoftheamericas.com

What if you had a government shutdown and no-one noticed?

We might be in that spot with the so-called government shutdown in the United States. Last Tuesday, Oct 1, the wheels of government were to have ground to a halt. News outlets trumpeted that doom and disaster waited if a deal was not made. President Obama admonished the Republicans in the House of Representatives to get on with a spending bill.  The Republicans said only “if Obamacare is removed.”

Now before we go too far into this let’s be very clear - I am not taking sides. Both the Republicans and the Democrats had political reasons to want to see a shutdown. Both sides see victory in the upcoming election in 2014 by blaming the other for the supposed mess. Based on that alone there was little real chance a deal could be brokered prior to the Oct 1 deadline.

So, last Tuesday the US government shutdown.  Well, sort of and there’s the rub. If either side is to gain victory from the shutdown it is necessary to have an angry population calling for the responsible parties figurative head on a pole. Then the other side can be blamed and elections won.

 But what if the population didn’t notice? What if the sky did not fall? What if life went on?  Then what?

We simply don’t know.  Despite all of the dire warnings of murder and mayhem in the street without a strong federal government Americans found that Tuesday looked pretty much like Monday and Wednesday was going to look a lot like Tuesday.

Yes, certain departments did shutdown but, in reality, most did not. Successive generations of American politicians, on both sides of the aisle, fearful of an angry electorate have quietly declared larger and larger parts of the government essential services and immune to shut down.

Out of the entire US government only 800,000 US federal workers were sent home. For most Americas it was a faceless 800,000. Civilian workers in the military were the largest single group sent home. The problem for both Democrats and Republicans  was that the public had very little contact with those military workers. Unless you were married to, or lived next door to a US military civilian employee it might be years before you realized they were not working.

Even this fell apart as the Pentagon realized that the President and Congress had recently signed a law into effect that declared  civilian workers were exempt from a shutdown. By today (Oct 7) 320,000 or so bodies were heading back to work.

The next group to be most impacted was the Internal Revenue Service, the tax people.  85,000 of them were sent home to watch bad daytime TV. If politicians were hoping people would notice that the IRS was closed and complain about it they will have a long wait. Most people would be happy if the IRS never, ever opened again.

 

Who were the last 350,000 or so US government workers not showing up on Tuesday? CNN developed what is probably the best resource of who is open and who is not. The majority of the 350,000 have a role in setting and enforcing rules and regulations. Like the IRS, is anyone really going to complain the dairy inspector is not coming around?

What is getting paid in the US is just about everything else. When an American goes to their mailbox to get their government cheque it will be there delivered by the US postal office. Want to talk to your Congressman – sure - because he/she is being paid. In almost every case the face to face contact with US citizens has been declared essential services so they just keep chugging on.

So where is the political risk? Well, perhaps it is in 350,000 angry federal employees not getting paid and extracting revenge at election time for one party or the other. Nope. Congress and President Obama have so far agreed on one thing and one thing only. Any federal employees who are not working will get full back pay when they return to work. In my books that is a paid holiday.

 Back to the original question. What if you had a government shutdown and no-one noticed? It might just last a very long time. Americans continue to go to work and will face inconveniences like not being able to get a passport but other than that…

In a vain effort to prove government is important the US is left with blocking veterans from visiting war monuments, shutting down the Amber alert systems and blocking people from taking pictures of Mt Rushmore – even at a distance.

This could go on for a long time – or until the US government hits the debt ceiling – whichever comes first.

From the Canadian Minister of Veterans Affairs

Dear Veteran / Cher(ère) vétéran,

 

(For your information / Pour information)

There exists a tangle of misinformation regarding how Canada treats its men and women who have served in uniform - as well as regarding the legislation known as the New Veterans Charter. Improvements made by our government, and validated by the latest Veterans Ombudsman report, indicate that while important gaps do need to be filled, a majority of Canada's veterans receive the support and care that they need.

Almost eight years ago, a unanimous Parliament endorsed wholesale change to veterans' support and services. Since implementing the New Veterans Charter in 2006, our government has invested almost $4.7-billion in new funding to enhance veterans benefits, programs and services. Today, seriously injured veterans receive significant financial support up front, and each month, in addition to having access to world-class treatment from some of the most experienced medical professionals in Canada.

As the Ombudsman notes in his recently released actuarial analysis, "the Enhanced [New Veterans] Charter is focused on wellness and rehabilitation, while the Pension Act focuses on compensation." Our approach is not to simply throw money at a problem or a person. We are focused on providing the best support and care for veterans and their families.

Canadians can and should be proud of the commitment they have shown through their parliamentarians to support Canadian veterans who are injured in the line of duty. According to the Veterans Ombudsman's report, the modern framework now in place to assist our former men and women in uniform "in lieu of a monthly pension cheque, [provides] a suite of benefits and services that encourages wellness and rehabilitation and is consistent with the principles of modern disability management."

The Ombudsman is also prudent enough to provide a caveat: "Frequently, comparisons are made only between the Pensions Act monthly disability pension and the New Veterans Charter lump sum disability award without taking into context the overall suite of monetary and non-monetary benefits provided under the New Veterans Charter. Such 'cherry picking' does not provide an objective view of how all the benefits come together to provide a particular effect."

Our government also introduced significant legislative improvements to the New Veterans Charter in 2011 that were praised in the Ombudsman's report as having "had a positive effect." We incorporated over 160 recommendations that were determined after wide consultation. In particular, we implemented enhancements to the New Veterans Charter that make it easier to qualify for the Permanent Impairment Allowance (PIA) and the Exceptional Incapacity Allowance, along with a series of other changes that boost the transition of a veteran to civilian life.

Furthermore, contrary to popular belief, the changes made by our government allow for a veteran to have increased choice. They can either receive a one-time lump-sum payment; an annual installment over the number of years of a veteran's choosing; or a combination of these two payment options.

Our government continues to take positive action on behalf of veterans. Last week, I announced that the government of Canada will support a comprehensive review of the New Veterans Charter, including all enhancements, with a special focus placed on the most seriously injured, support for families and the delivery of programs by Veterans Affairs Canada. I call on parliamentarians to focus on how we can better assist veterans. This parliamentary review, guided by representatives elected by the people of Canada, will provide an appropriate forum where all voices can be heard, including and especially those of veterans, their family members, other interested individuals and subject-matter experts. That is where we can work together to enact appropriate change for veterans and their families.
In truth, the very reason for the Ombudsman's work is to support just such a review, and not supersede it as a few critics have falsely claimed.

Our government is committed to the veteran who has sacrificed so much for their country. We will continue to work through Veterans Affairs Canada, with relevant stakeholders, community and families to ensure that we ably meet needs while also being mindful of our responsibility to the Canadian taxpayer.

Our veterans, and Canadians, deserve no less.

Sincerely / Cordialement,

Julian Fantino  PC, MP / CP, député
Minister of Veterans Affairs / Ministre des Anciens Combattants

Mount Rushmore blockage stirs anger in South Dakota

Apparently there are a few too many Federal workers still on the job in United States (at least in South Dakota) - Norman

 

Written by Jonathan Ellis for the Argus Leader

 Blocking access to trails and programs at South Dakota’s most popular attraction was one thing, but state officials didn’t expect Congress’ budget stalemate to shut down a view of Mount Rushmore.

The National Park Service placed cones along highway viewing areas outside Mount Rushmore this week, barring visitors from pulling over and taking pictures of the famed monument.

The cones first went up Oct. 1, said Dusty Johnson, Gov. Dennis Daugaard’s chief of staff. The state asked that they be taken down, and federal officials did so with some of them. The state was told the cones were a safety precaution to help channel cars into viewing areas rather than to bar their entrance.

“I think reasonable people can disagree about that,” Johnson said.

The cones were down again Friday as a blizzard hit the Black Hills and plows needed access to the roads, Johnson said. He said the state would be monitoring to see whether the cones are put back along viewing areas.

“Once the snow’s off the ground, we’re going to be keeping an eye on how the cones go up,” Johnson said.

The Buffalo News reported that a tour group of dozens of people from western New York was unable to take pictures of the monument because highway viewing areas were coned off.

“It’s all closed up,” the newspaper quoted North Collins, N.Y., resident Hilde Werneth as saying. “They won’t even let you stop and take a picture. You can only drive by.”

Jim Hagen, secretary of the South Dakota Department of Tourism, said the situation is hurting people from out-of-state and international visitors who are in South Dakota to visit the monument.
“They won’t even let you pull off on the side of the road,” Hagen said. “I just don’t know what they’re trying to accomplish.”

A spokeswoman for the National Park Service in Omaha confirmed that the monument is closed, but she said she didn’t have details about cones. A message left at Mount Rushmore was not returned.

 

The closure is part of a budget showdown between House Republicans who want to defund the Affordable Care Act and Democrats who want to preserve funding. Republicans have passed spending bills that would open the parks and restore services to other areas of the federal government, but Democrats say the Republicans should pass a spending that bill that funds the Affordable Care Act, too.

Perry Plumart, a spokesman for Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson, said closing Mount Rushmore hurts visitors, businesses and furloughed park rangers.
“The best way to restore access to all national parks, including Mount Rushmore, is for Speaker Boehner and the House to pass a clean continuing resolution and end the government shutdown,” Plumart said.

But Republicans said the administration is unnecessarily making the shutdown more painful than needed — including coning off viewing areas near Mount Rushmore.

“It disgusts me that taxpayer resources were used on this act of stupidity,” Rep. Kristi Noem said. “This is federal government arrogance at its worst.”

Sen. John Thune said he had seen photos of the coned-off viewing areas, and he said it’s “outrageous” if federal officials are barring people from pulling over and taking pictures from the highway.

“It seems to me, on a lot of levels — and we saw this out here with the World War II Memorial — the administration wants to make this as painful as possible,” Thune said, referring to barricades around the memorial.

Thune said the Senate could easily take up spending bills to fund parks and other specific items rather than an overall spending bill, but he said Democrats have refused. “They, obviously, prefer to have the issue and not the solution,” he said.

Daugaard offered to keep Mount Rushmore open using state resources, Dusty Johnson noted. The National Park Service declined.

“I can’t even believe we’re having this conversation,” he said.

And something for those who think the sky is falling...

Original From Gallup

 

October 1, 2013

History Suggests Shutdown Stakes May Not Be That High

1995 battle didn't affect views of Clinton, Gingrich, nor U.S. in the long term

by Elizabeth Mendes

WASHINGTON, DC -- As the federal government prepares to shut down for the first time since 1995/1996, historical Gallup data reveal that the repercussions of that past conflict ranged from none to short-lived, in terms of Americans' concerns about the U.S. and the political players involved. The 1995/1996 closure, which occurred when -- just like today -- Republican leaders in Congress and a Democratic president failed to agree on the budget, did little to impact Americans' views of President Bill Clinton, Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, Congress itself, the U.S. economy, and the country in general in the months after the shutdown began.

Before the U.S. government shutdown on Nov. 14, 1995, President Clinton's job approval stood at 52%. It dipped to 42% in an early January Gallup survey, but bounced back up to 52% by mid-March. His favorable rating took even less of a hit, falling just five percentage points to 54% in mid-January 1996 -- after the second shutdown ended -- from 59% in early November. And, his favorability climbed back up to 58% in mid-March 1996.

Americans' views of the U.S. speaker of the House at the time, Newt Gingrich, are a bit more complicated. While Gingrich's job approval suffered some in the short term, his favorability rating actually ticked up slightly just after the shutdown ended. But by February and March of 1996, Americans' views of Gingrich were right back to where they were prior to the budget battle -- relatively low -- and stayed that way.

Similarly, Americans' satisfaction with the way things were going in the United States dropped slightly at the end of the government shutdown, but by March improved to higher than it was before the closure. And, their views of the U.S. economy were mostly stable before, during, and after the 1995/1996 government shutdown.

One thing, though, that is likely to change, at least in the short term, is Americans' perceptions of the most important problem facing the nation. The budget rose to the top of Americans' most important problem list in January 1996, overtaking crime, which had been the No. 1 problem throughout 1994 and 1995 and returned to the top of the list by May 1996, after the budget issues subsided.

Implications

The partial shutdown of the U.S. federal government -- the first one in 17 years -- took effect at 12:01 a.m. Tuesday, because the Republican leaders in Congress and President Barack Obama have failed to agree on a budget to keep the government funded. Gallup's historical data surrounding a similar 1995/1996 government shutdown reveal that the current battle may have little impact on Americans' views of today's political leaders -- at least through the next several months.

Additionally, Americans already view Congress itself -- and the Republicans and Democrats who are part of it -- very poorly, meaning there is not much room for their perceptions of the legislative branch to worsen further.

President Obama may have more to lose, in a way. His approval rating has been somewhere in the 40% range throughout September and was 44% on Monday, according to Gallup Daily tracking conducted Sept. 27-29. But Americans are slightly more likely to see President Obama as acting more responsibly than the Republican leaders in Congress in handling the budget negotiations. Thus, Obama -- like Clinton -- may end up unscathed after the shutdown ends.

Speaker of the House John Boehner is in a potentially more precarious position. His favorable rating slid down to 31% in April, the last time Gallup asked about him. And Boehner is facing pressure not only from the left, but also from his own party on the right -- to not give in on addressing the healthcare law.

Beyond the politicians though, Americans' confidence in the economy is already floundering and their satisfaction with the way things are going in the U.S. remains in the low-20% range. If history is a guide, it is possible that their views of the situation in the country may worsen in the short term, which for an economy -- and job market -- still in recovery, is troublesome. But, long term, it is unclear whether a possibly short-lived government shutdown will ultimately negatively impact the economic situation in the U.S.

Pakistan frees top Taliban leader Abdul Ghani Baradar

Original from BBC.com

 

 

Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, co-founder of the Afghan Taliban, has been freed from jail in Pakistan.

The Afghan government welcomed the move, as it sees him as one of the few senior Taliban figures willing to negotiate a peace deal to end unrest.

Mullah Baradar is one of the four men who founded the Taliban movement in Afghanistan in 1994.

He became a linchpin of the insurgency after the Taliban was toppled by the US-led invasion in 2001.

He was captured in the Pakistani city of Karachi in 2010.

Mullah Baradar held several senior positions in the Taliban government before its fall in 2001. He then fled to Pakistan and for some years was the Taliban's military commander as they regrouped to fight a guerrilla war.

He was reportedly arrested in a secret raid by CIA and Pakistani agents.

The BBC's Aleem Maqbool in Islamabad says releasing one of the founders of the Taliban and a mastermind of the Afghan insurgency would seem a counter-productive step for the Kabul government and the US-led coalition.

But Mullah Baradar has been seen as one of the few senior Taliban figures who has shown a willingness to negotiate, our correspondent says.

The government in Kabul has been pressing for him to be free.

Afghan diplomats had suggested Pakistan was trying to hinder the reconciliation process by backing more hardline elements within the Taliban.

The Taliban opened a political office in Doha in June, but it was quickly closed after President Karzai complained that they had flown a flag and put up a plaque as if they were a government in exile.

Since then the US, UK, and Turkey have all attempted to mediate to reopen talks. President Karzai has appealed to the Taliban leadership to return home and negotiate openly, but has not offered guarantees of security.

Even if a political settlement is agreed, which will be hard, it may be difficult to deliver it, says the BBC's David Loyn.

The Taliban is no longer the monolithic structure it once was, and a new younger generation of insurgents - particularly those fighting in the allied Haqqani network - may not be willing to stop the war.

Some members of the former leadership, such as Mullah Zaeef, who had been living openly in Kabul, have faced harassment and raids on their homes.

There are also concerns among women's rights activists that the fragile gains made since 2001 could be jeopardised for a peace deal with the Taliban.

A prominent MP, Shukria Barakzai, told the BBC that the government's priority is to do a deal, "whatever the price." She is among those fighting in parliament to defend laws that protect women from violence, and believes that the government does not see this as a priority.

Mrs Barakzai said a deal with the Taliban would make victims of "the people of Afghanistan, and in particular the women of Afghanistan."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24185441#"