Today was a short day. We only went five hours instead of the customary six. Still, there was a lot going on in those five hours.

1. Gifts and tools – when we arrived we were each given a large binder to keep our paperwork in. Each binder also contained an 8GB thumb drive and a day-timer for 2012.
2. The first section of the day was taken up with the paperwork necessary for registration and for setting up our bank accounts so we could get paid. Since this is a government funded program, there were a lot of papers to fill out and explain. Once that was out of the way we moved on to the exercises for the day.
3. Exercise one was introductions, but with a twist. Instead of going around the table and having each person introduce themselves, which I personally hate with a deep, purple passion, we were asked to interview the person next to us and introduce them. A page of questions was provided so that we all used the same framework for the interview. I think the point of doing it this way was to begin the process of getting us used to interviewing people and to make it easier for us to speak in public. Because we weren’t talking about ourselves it allayed some of the anxiety we might have felt about speaking to the group.
4. Next up was an exercise to introduce brain-storming. We broke up into three small groups. Each group was given a basket of something. My group’s basket contained a bunch of Fir cones. We had to come up with as many novel uses for the contents of the basket as we could in ten minutes. Good exercise because we had to really strain to think outside the box. Our group had a bit of a tough time because our recorder wanted to disqualify some ideas. We were fine once we convinced them that all ideas should be recorded.
5. After lunch we used our brain-storming skills to develop and adopt a set of guidelines for group interaction. That will act like our constitution for the duration of the program.
6. Then came an exercise called scotomas. That’s a medical term, apparently, that is used to denote blind spots in the eye. We were each given a card with a phrase on it. The task was to count the number of times the letter F appeared in the phrase. This seems like a simple task, but nobody got the number right the first time through. The point of the exercise was that, once we had come up with a number we tended to stick with it. Our belief in our first count created a psychological blind spot. This idea was extended to the ways we construct our own outcomes based on the presuppositions that we have, and also how our preconceptions can be passed on to other people.
7. The final activity was watching a video about the book Who Moved the Cheese? The obvious point was that change is constant, whether we like it or not. Worrying about how things should be, feeling sorry for ourselves or railing against fate doesn’t do any good. The goal is to embrace change and move with it. My favorite line in the movie was Smell the cheese often so you’ll know when its getting stale.

That was the end of the first day. One of the things that wasn’t an exercise, but that emerged over the course of the day, was the criteria they used in selecting the participants for this iteration of the program.

Around fifty people applied for the program in the beginning. The narrowed the list to twenty-eight who were invited to an information session. During that session we learned a little bit about the program and played a couple of group games that called for collaboration and creativity. Then there was a final interview process. The final result of all this was that eleven people were invited to take part.

It turns out that that information session was very important. A lot of people got cut because of how they acted during that session. They were looking for people who would take part and contribute without being abrasive, interrupting a lot or starting side conversations. So they were playing one game while we thought we were doing something entirely different. This makes sense, really, because the whole program is based on creating a powerful group dynamic of mutual support, so anybody who didn’t seem to play well with others essentially kicked themselves out of the running without even knowing it. Very interesting.

Tomorrow we have some outside trainers coming in to teach a workshop on personality assessment, the point being to help us discover what kind of environments and activities would be best suited to our way of being in the world. Should be fun.

I’ve been accepted into an employment training program called Vintage Advantage. The purpose of the training is assist people 55 to 65 years old in finding employment or starting their own business.

The facilitators of the program say that it helps you discover hidden areas of interest and forgotten abilities which are in demand in today’s job market. Emphasis isn’t on finding just any job, but the perfect job.

I have high hopes for the program. They claim to have a 100% success rate. My intention right now is to go into the business stream, but, if the perfect job comes along I wouldn’t turn it down.

The program starts tomorrow and runs for three months. I’ll give regular updates here on my progress and the things I learn as the program unfolds.

Watch this space for daily updates!

Today was mainly devoted to cruising the interwebs, reading my favorite blogs and discovering a couple of new ones. Here are today’s picks for thought provoking content and excellent writing. My regular readers, both of them, will really enjoy these articles.

First up is the latest article from Tomdispatch.com. I freely admit that I read and recommend everything that appears on that blog.

Fighting 1% Wars

Why Our Wars of Choice May Prove Fatal

By William J. Astore

America’s wars are remote.  They’re remote from us geographically, remote from us emotionally (unless you’re serving in the military or have a close relative or friend who serves), and remote from our major media outlets, which have given us no compelling narrative about them, except that they’re being fought by “America’s heroes” against foreign terrorists and evil-doers.  They’re even being fought, in significant part, by remote control — by robotic drones “piloted” by ground-based operators from a secret network of bases located hundreds, if not thousands, of miles from the danger of the battlefield.

Their remoteness, which breeds detachment if not complacency at home, is no accident.  Indeed, it’s a product of the fact that Afghanistan and Iraq were wars of choice, not wars of necessity.  It’s a product of the fact that we’ve chosen to create a “warrior” or “war fighter” caste in this country, which we send with few concerns and fewer qualms to prosecute Washington’s foreign wars of choice.

Mr Astore is right on here. One thing that he hints at towards the end of the piece, but doesn’t actually say, is that countries that establish the kind of warrior caste that he is talking about wind up being controlled by that class. The Mameluke empire in Egypt is a perfect example. First you achieve foreign power by using mercenaries. Next you use them to maintain order inside your country. Finally, the warriors wake up and realize that they are the only power in the society. As soon as they realize that, they kick your ass to the curb and become the power on the throne instead of the power behind the throne.

Uncivil Righteousness

Opines Bachmann, allowing gay people to marry somebody of the same sex would be conferring special privileges on a select group based on their (presumed) sexual practices. Because, as I’m sure you all know, gay people only want to get married to each other for the squicky gay rainbow sex and not because they actually love each other and want to commit to spending their lives together like normal people do. It’s totally true and you can look that up.

In replying to Ms. Schmidt, Bachmann gave a total of six responses – and those six paragraphs clearly demonstrate why this ridiculous goof should be kept as far from public office, any office, as is possible.  Not only should voters, allvoters especially including conservatives, soundly reject her bid for president, they shouldn’t even elect her to be the town dog catcher – let alone a United States lawmaker.

I have to say that I haven’t been following American politics at all recently. The last time I paid any attention was when Obama ran against McCain. Look how that turned out. I’ve never heard of Michelle Bachmann, but same-sex marriage interests me and this article does a masterful job of dissecting the issue and exposing the sheer silliness of its opponents.

One of the good things about being a Canadian is that we are ahead of the curve on this issue. Ever since Trudeau said that the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation, we’ve been slowly pecking away and overturning all the outmoded laws against various kinds of sexual expression. Not that we’re perfect. Right now we are wrestling with polygamy statutes, and we have tough time differentiating in the area of cultural norms, but we are on the right track. Of course, all that could change now that George W Harper has a majority in Parliament, but we can hope.

The Lost Art Of Rumination

If you aren’t clear on WHY you want to get rich…

… then, once you get there, you’re gonna be one lost little puppy.

It’s like mobilizing your life to move somewhere you think will make you happy. You can do it, and you can wind up in a gorgeous penthouse in the best part of town… but if your next thought is “now what?”, then you may be left wondering what it all means. With no answer forthcoming.

Again

There are tons of books and coaching programs and seminars available that claim to make planning out your life easy. They’ll help you with the “here’s what I want to do“, and “here’s how I can get that done” processes…

… but every single one I’ve seen is woefully deficient in helping you understand “WHY I want to do that in the first place.”

The “why’s” of life are mostly ignored. It’s taken for granted that big houses, fancy sports cars, better looking spouses, bigger/better/nicer/more expensive everything is of COURSE the preferred goal.

And maybe that’s true for you.

This article really rang a bell for me. I’m in the process of rebuilding my life and I’ve found exactly the situation he talks about here. There are all kinds of resources for setting goals and achieving targets and time management, but damned little about discovering where you really want to go or why you should want to go there. I really enjoyed this little nugget, too:

In my view, you don’t need money to be successful. Money just solves the problems that not having money creates… so having “enough” money, in this culture, can help you stay clear of the time-consuming bullshit of scrambling to keep a roof over your head and food in your gut.

Right on, John. Anyway, those are my top reading picks for today. Hope you enjoy them.

It’s funny to watch all the howling going on among the wealthy and the financial institutions about the transaction tax, as though them being forced to pay anything at all would bring the world to a shuddering halt.

The economy is broken and we need a better one. Pure capitalism simply doesn’t work anymore. Capitalism is touted almost like a religion nowadays, as though it was the only moral and right way to manage an economy. The funny thing about that is that Adam Smith, the founder of modern capitalism warned against its dangers should it become the dominant force in society. He presumed that religion and common sense would act as a counter-force to the sheer unbridled greed of pure capitalism. Sorry, Adam, that dog don’t hunt no more.

The transaction tax wouldn’t be a huge burden. The one being argued about in Europe is only 3 basis points or $3 on every $10,000 traded. It would certainly have an affect on the volume traders, because they make a lot of their money by trading huge volumes.

A financial transaction tax is not a novel idea. Actually, the U.S. had such a tax from 1914 to 1966, when the tax forced investors to pay a small fee every time they executed a trade. It was intended not only to raise revenue for the government, but also to deter excessive speculation. Congress has flirted with the idea of resurrecting the tax in some shape or form ever since it went away back in the 60s, but there has never been enough support for one.

A transaction tax might depress the economy somewhat, but maybe that’s a good thing. The economy as its structure right now is a rigged game that only benefits a few.

We need to come up with some way of decoupling the health of the economy from the health of Wall Street corporations. We also need a new economic model that doesn’t depend on growth. If we can’t achieve a better system we’ll wind up in a situation where a few uber-wealthy people have eaten the world while the rest of us starve in the dark.

The fat cats and the politicians don’t get it. They didn’t understand what was behind the Arab Spring, they don’t understand the Occupy Wall Street movement either. Its a simple matter of inequity.

There’s a famous psychological experiment that revolves around two subjects and a fixed amount of money. If both subjects can agree on how the money is divided up, they get to keep it. The kicker is that one person is in charge of deciding how the money is split, but the other person has veto power on whether the division takes place. If they can’t get together they both lose.

This experiment has been tried with people from all societies and all economic classes and the results are pretty universal. Somewhere around the 70/30 mark people start to dig in there heels. If things go much farther than that, the deal is off. It works both ways, too. If person A says he’ll take 20% and give the other person 80%, person B will protest and try to move things back to something more equitable, even though it costs him. There seems to be a brain structure devoted to fairness in these kinds of situations.

If there is, then the people in power have brain damage. There’s another brain structure in charge empathy. Serial killers have damage in that area and that part of the brain doesn’t light up when they inflict pain on others. Bankers and stock brokers must have similar damage to their equity brain structures.

That’s what the occupy movement is about, basic equity. There’s something they got wrong though. They say “we are the 99%” when actually, they are the 99.9998%. Those are the figures in Canada, anyway, and the same situation is probably true throughout the western world.

The wealthy have privilege but no responsibility. We have 61 billionaires in Canada. Their combined wealth is $162 billion. Our national debt is only 33 billion. If they were all equally wealthy they would each have $2.7 billion and if they gave up 1/6 of their wealth they could clear our national debt. Something is very wrong with that picture.

There’s a myth going around that says we have to leave the wealthy in peace because their investment of their wealth into the economy is what makes growth possible and ensures a healthy economy. Its definitely time to kick that old chestnut to the curb.

Actually, that used to be the case. Corporations used to re-invest almost all their profits back into the economy. That was the situation in Canada until the 1980s. But it isn’t the case any more. Now the profits are paid out in dividends, salaries and bonuses, and very little is actually invested. Long term growth has been sacrificed for short-term dividends. One more problem that arises when the health of the stock market gets confused with the health of the economy.

The most interesting thing about that is the timing of the change. The reduction in re-investment has grown as corporate taxes have been cut. Businesses used to pay taxes of 36%. Brian Mulroney’s government began cutting the tax rate in 1988. That tax rate will be 12% at the end of 2011. Its almost like a disease broke out when government began cutting taxes. The businesses got a taste for extra money, and that demand for more and more short-term payoffs is being reflected in the lack of investment. Whatever the reasons, the trends speak for themselves.

We need to develop some new rules of thumb that guide us in economic issues. One might be that people who have acquired more than a specific amount of wealth have to begin underwriting some of societies expense. Maybe the Labatt family should have to fund education in Canada, or the Bronfmanns have to contribute some percentage of their wealth to child care. Or maybe those 61 billionaires could agree to fund the health system.

We’ve been told that times are tough and that we have to tighten our belts and slash programs. That’s a big cartload of horseshit. There’s more money flowing now than there ever has been. The only reason we’re in trouble is because a few movers and shakers have gotten their grubby mitts on the levers of power and rigged things so that all that flow is diverted into a small number of buckets. Quite simply, if the money wasn’t there, they wouldn’t have it.

Those sixty-one billionaires own twice as much wealth as the rest of us combined. Its not because they are necessarily smarter and it certainly isn’t because they contribute more or have greater responsibilities. Something has to change. It will change. That kind of change isn’t restricted to the middle east.

Here’s a final, possible rule of thumb. Make it illegal for any employee of a company to earn more than 100 times the wage of the lowest paid worker in the company. That would be a step in the right direction.