Whether it is 400 barrels or 40,000 barrels or more, which it very likely will end up being, the potential damage is frightening. What is more frightening still, is the very obvious prioritization on the part of BP to cover up the evidence of the damage ( by withholding video of the oil well for weeks ) over getting any and all relevant information to sciences as quickly as possible.

The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico couldn’t have come at a worse time; the waters are filled with fish, shrimp, oysters and crab in high spawning season. With oil seeping into oyster beds and no plankton for the shrimp to eat, seafood supply is about to come to a halt—threatening the livelihood of small operators and local fisheries in the area.  But more importantly, New Orleans restaurateurs to seafood lovers are worried that their shrimp cocktail is about to disappear off the menu—for an indefinite amount of time.  For the people of Louisiana that is equivalent to Italians having to forgo pasta.

Many Louisianans fear that the massive oil spill will not be contained without affecting local seafood supply—so they are urgently rushing to the fish markets to stock up as much as they can. As one local explains to the news media outlets, “seafood in Louisiana is a part of life; it’s like walking the dog or going to church on Sunday, people have to have it—it’s like a drug.” Another local Carole St. German explained as such: “people here evacuate for hurricanes and take all their shrimp; they may leave some of their good clothes but they will take their shrimp.”

As someone who couldn’t live without consuming seafood on a weekly basis—except for maybe scallops—has even me a little concerned. After all the idea of a limited supply driving up prices, yet again, in the grocery stores has provoked seafood lovers to hoard mussels and shrimp by the bucket fulls.

Still, the remaining issue is how long, if at all, will the level of quality of seafood be affected and what will the long terms effects be on the local businesses? We want to hear your thoughts!

As it turns out, the ” Bombardier Way” is as much about the company’s culture –it’s soul—as it is about vision and process. Hachey describes how they communicate the strategy by using the mind-body-soul analogy. First, he starts off with the “mind” which relates to the “what we are trying to do as a company.” Basically, it the business plans—the mission or vision of a company. “It’s our sandbox so I tell them the mind is important. I said, “most companies have the mind, but you know, we have to know we’re going to play and what we’re going to compete in,” he tells Moore.

The second aspect is the body, which is basically “the processes and the procedures, the policies, the systems, the operating systems we have in place.” Hachey explains further by saying how vital it is to have a system that is based on lean principles that qualifies employees into these segments. While Bombardier is aiming for a gold star it is a silver-rated organization. “We’re trying to get a gold. It will probably take us another two years….. and that’s all for 30,000 people; we’re getting trained in the same approach,” he says of the operating system set in place to reach excellence at Bombardier.

Finally, there’s the soul or, “the mushy stuff—the more important stuff,” describes Hachey to Moore. It is interesting how much value they place on the kind of culture they want to have, the behaviors, the norms and they expect their people to behave. “I guess it is the collective personality of the company and how we come across to our stakeholders, customers and communities,” he tells.

What is particularly interesting to me is how open and transparent this aerospace giant has become in a time when the airline business has suffered greatly from the natural freak of nature—the volcanic ash that grounded plans everywhere around the world. Not only was it an opportune time to promote its brand but also speak so highly of its team of workers.

When asked how such shifts, trends or changes in strategy and plans can last years and years down the road, Hachey responds by saying “it is something that has got to be the long term. It’s really ….the collective personality of our enterprise. And I keep telling our people, when our customers rouch us, when our supplies touch us, they have to be able to differentiate that they weren’t dealing with Rockwell Collins or GM or some other company.” Now this approach isn’t for everyone. Not everyone wants to be a part of a particular corporate culture.

But as Hachey continues on, it is evident that most of the people at Bombardier are responsive to their “way.” “What we’re finding is that the great majority of employees want this. They want to have clarity. They want to have ownership. They want to belong – to belong to something. And I keep telling people, “I’m hoping that, 10 years from now, we look back as a team and we say, ‘We were part of this evolution and now we’re the standard of the industry or in the top quartile of the industry and we did it.’ ” And, that’s what we come to work for. That’s what I come to work for now.”

That’s a solid effort to say competitive in this tough economic time—and I would hope that my bet is save with Bombardier coming out on top.

To watch the full interview, visit: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/managing/talking-management/bombardiers-mind-body-soul-connection/article1548589/

Actually, yes. In a recent cover story in Maclean’s, a reporter went inside the psyche of a nation to uncover what some say, is the biggest division between Republicans and Democrats since Civil War.

On the heels of the Democrats’ victory in passing a historic healthcare reform bill, the Obama administration is are now facing opposition from a mushrooming number of anti-government, anti-tax and anti-abortion advocates that are forming a conservative grassroots movement.

In the news piece, it points to such media pundits as talk radio’s Rush Limbaugh and Fox news host Glenn Beck are pushing Republican politicians into moving even farther right. Observers say this is the first time in history they have witnessed such a conflict in partisan politics, between the liberals and conservatives. With the Republican’s recent grant slam in Massachusetts with its Senate seat win, Democrats have moved swiftly to reposition themselves for this shifty politically-driven revolt.

Leading the charge on the right is the so-called Tea Party, whose protesters have adopted Obama’s iconography, portraying the President with a red joker smear around his mouth and white face paint—a demonic Al Jolson—is disturbingly suggestive of blackface minstrelsy.”  

What is even scarier is how many Tea Party backers—up to 42 percent—believe Obama is doing many of the things that Hitler did. And in an increasingly divided nation, groups like the Guardians of the Free Republics-according to its website committed to the “behind-the-scenes peaceful” dismantling of the U.S. government-are springing up. By one estimate, the number of paramilitary groups in the U.S. had almost tripled in 2009 to 512.

The problem with this sort of political dissent, however, is that it threatens the very purpose of a democratic process—for whichever party may be in power—to serve its people and lead the nation. It also distracts us from the real issues at hand like a banking reform or say, an international peace treaty.

Let’s hear what you think. Share your comment here.

In most major cities, pretty well neighborhood has this recognizable coffee shop around the corner. In the early 1990s, Starbucks strategically plugged themselves on-screen, in big blockbuster hits. The brand has become a symbol of designer drinks, in stylish settings and conveniently located in large bookstores, namely the Chapters-Indigo company. New mommies to college grads alike have become brand ambassadors to the faithful Starbucks. Job interviews and networking events are often spotted in the café. Even organizations and small groups hold monthly meetings in the communal hot spot.

But what happens when the advocates for gun rights and of gun control meet up at the same place? The latter demanded that the coffee chain prevent the other group from meeting and in attempt to duck the controversial debate, Starbucks itself is caught in the cross fire. But keeping an open discussion between or among such groups in the public sphere, on private property, is a tricky line to tow. Because one of the ways Starbucks has stood out is in promoting itself as, “not a place to have coffee, but an experience.”

While the controversy may have put the company in a tough spot, it really isn’t such a bad situation. In fact, it could be spun has a positive from the public relations view. After all, making the news –in whatever shape or form—does keep customers thinking about Starbucks, reinforcing the brand in tough times; not bad at all. Especially since Starbucks considers itself a “third place” apart from home and the office, a place where people to segregate or, escape from work.

Personally, I’m pretty dedicated to the fair trade, independent types but will also go for the occasional Tim Hortons. The truth of the matter is I have some personal beef with how Starbucks has come to be. My first job in high school was working for a joint Canadian bagel and coffee shop that was new to the corner. When Starbucks opened a few months later, they had recruited some of their coffee customer agents from our store because they had already been trained on the cappuccino machines. To top it off, they persuaded a few people by asking how much they were paid and offered them a dollar extra, if they came over. It was pretty weasel-y but it does make smart business sense, regardless.

But on the heels of the Democrats’ victory in making health care more accessible to Americans this week, some 12 state attorneys announced plans to challenge the new law on the grounds it is “unconstitutional.” Believe or not, Virginia has already passed a law that protects its citizens from a government mandate to buy health coverage, which is one of the provisions.

While some angered citizens and Republicans expressed dismay, how could anyone with a sense of social responsibility really believe U.S. representatives who voted for this new law are that careless in the Capitol? It’s called looking out for your neighbors, my friends. While tough economic times, often means having to look out for one’s own to avoid total financial despair, it certainly isn’t a reason for selfishness. Granted that the Americans’ sense of security has gone through the rigger after the Great Recession, it is still no excuse for pundits to play on such vulnerable emotions just so they are against something that is completely for their own good—health-wise, that is.

As a Canadian neighbor to our readers, it is always interesting to gain some insight on the American psyche. Over the past year, in speaking with hundreds of business owners, I’ve gained an appreciation for the Americans’ overall drive for success. But what baffles me is the general public’s lack of knowledge of what the healthcare measure would really mean. The Conservative-influenced TV networks do a good job at keeping the public at the edge of their seat, worried about the next big scary thing. So I turned to a group of politico friends—both Conservative and Liberal-leaning for their thoughts. It turns out despite our different political tendencies, as Canadians, we still had a hard time understanding what all the fuss was about.

One liberal leaning colleague pointed out: “And they are the ones complaining that the health care bill would cost too much. Newsflash: lawyers cost money!  Finally, the States are on the road to a true health care system. Believe me, Obama knows better than Palin on this one.”

A Conservative politico blogger admitted: “I’m quite taken aback by the extremism of some Republicans on this issue. I’m really curious what they proposed to make people without insurance (maybe they are middle class, in case they cared),” tells the West Coast native. And, I’d have to agree with him on that.

After all, he says, dogmatic people with extreme ideas (to the left or right) shut off the valve for an open discussion in the public domain. “If there is anything American needs, it’s more lawyers,” jokes the Conservative politico blogger.

Personally, I think the media should do a better job in informing the public, as they play a critical role in this discussion. Even though the healthcare measure does not extend to all Americans, just the uninsured, it is still a step forward, my Liberal-leaning politico friend adds.

“Baby steps will make it in that direction eventually. Anyways, with their large deficit, they couldn’t implement everything at once. Still, Obama succeeded where 4 presidents before him failed.”

What do you think?  Share your comment with us!

Lurking over the highly controversial topic in the online forum, I felt a tad odd and, for two good reasons. As the editor of an American publication it is of interest to keep taps on such issues in order to relate to readership. As a Canadian citizen, it is kind of like looking at the situation from vastly different set of glasses. Good thing I wear glasses, otherwise I wouldn’t be able to see—but that’s beside the point.

The topic du jour (Canadian sic) is a highly sensitive one because of it tends to be a sore spot—the idea of yet another American company impeded on its country’s culture—hits a patriotic nerve in a way that Canadians haven’t yet been promoting, until arguably the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver, as fiercely as their fellow neighbors (American sic).

If Canadians are really serious about protecting their culture, they (or we) should be brave enough to stand up and promote it… whatever it is. It seems with the melody of voices—French, English, the several First Nations and so many others—and the renewed debate of whether multiculturalism is really working has them on the defensive. And no wonder, a successful American e-commerce company has yet again narrowed in on their market—to capitalize and make profit—setting up shop in their back door.

 In the Globe and Mail moderated forum Canadian Booksellers Association vice-president Mark Lefebvre who took questions from participants, except for mine. Basically, he argues that competition is key. “We all need competition. It’s great for consumers. What might not be so great is if a behemoth comes into Canada and wipes out the ability for any competition to exist, leaving a single, non-Canadian owned entity running the show.”  What do you think?

To view the entire forum, please visit: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/canadas-booksellers-v-amazoncom/article1497139/

After the earthquake that shook Haitians, leaving the masses homeless and desperate for the basics, the world responded with aid and celebrity-endorsed TV fundraisers. Not to say any actors have anything to do with the interesting consequence. But according to Ben Fountain’s op-ed article in the New York Times (February 6), there’s an eerie consequence with the sudden attention on the poverty-stricken country and its ports being closed due to the natural disaster.

Prior to the earthquake, Haiti was already well-known as a “parking lot” for the cocaine trade and related political maneuvering. In fact, a 1993 memo written by John Kerry as the chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics and International Operations, asserted that “there is a partnership made in hell, in cocaine, and in dollars between the Colombian cartels and the Haitian military.” At the time, Haiti was well on its way to becoming the Caribbean’s leading transshipment point for cocaine entering the U.S. from South America. While the players up top have changed, this partnership has continued to flourish.

Today, drug trafficking is a billion-dollar-a-year enterprise in Haiti, generating tremendous profits in a country where most people survive on a few dollars a day. Former President Jean Betrand Aristide, who was elected many times over before various coups took him out of power, told the UN that each year Haiti is the transit point for 50 tons of cocaine worth more than a billion dollars, providing Haiti’s military rulers with $200 million in profits.

After the coup in September in 1991, Port-au-Prince’s chief of police, Lt. Col. Joseph Michel Francois became known as the key man in Haitian drug trafficking, along with a network of solders and paramilitary attaches who carried out ruthless political terrorism which killed thousands of Haitians. By 2000, an estimated 75 tons, or 15 percent of the cocaine consumed annually in the United States, was being channeled through Haiti. And so, as New York Times writer Fountain points out, Americans have shown tremendous generosity toward Haiti since Jan. 12 –more than $20 million in donations have been made to the Red Cross, $57 million or more was raised by the Hope for Haiti Now telethon, including the countless private planes taxied at airport runways in Florida, waiting for a landing slot in Port-au-Prince.

Ah yes, this is the good news story that makes us all feel good. Then there’s the other part—that darker side to the story. As Fountain reminders, the U.S. is currently the largest consumer of cocaine. Now, if you put two and two together it means, it’s all about drug wars, corrupt governance, death and poverty.

Isn’t it rather sickening to think that there is a straight line from our drug habit back to the conditions in Haiti? Has it really come down to some of the richest countries in the hemisphere and the poorest, trapped in the global war on drugs? One would have to agree with Fountain that it is naïve to hope that Americans will quit their cocaine any time soon for Haiti’s sake. But it would be equally naïve not to recognize this huge obstacle standing in Haiti’s way, and the role we’ve played in creating it.

Still, it is rather gross to think our hope for Haiti lead straight back to our addictions.

Times have surely changed. Along with thousands of other eager attendees, I will be at the Prospectors and Developers Association Conference next week, Monday through Wednesday, scoping out new stories and making some new contacts. Coverage will be included in all George Media publications next month.

Though last year was tough for the sector, I’m looking forward to re-connecting with old friends, and hopefully making some new ones!

George Media will not be at a booth, but you can surely find me, or my colleague Aaron Weafer, scoping out the scene. We look forward to meeting you!

With its central Toronto locale, down the street from the TSX, PDAC 2010 is sure to be a hub of activity for anyone who’s considering investing, reporting, or looking for new strategic partners. For more information and to register visit http://www.pdac.ca/pdac/conv/index.html.

See you there!

Sara Kopamees, Editor in Chief

It is not inconceivable that Apple will take several companies to task. After all, CEO Steve Jobs has always been very clear about intending to defend more than 200 patents within the iPhone. It’s obvious Apple doesn’t need the money, but the company ’s ideas are intended to offer unique products—not a platform for similar ones.

The HTC lawsuit could be the first of many, as larger manufacturers (e.g. Motorola, Samsung or Sony Ericsson) have similar touchscreen products. Regardless of how far it goes, Apple’s actions are sending a clear signal that it wants erode the market of iPhone look-alikes. And fighting an aggressive battle against HTC could be enough of a deterrent.

Now we wait for the fallout.