More Letters to the Corinthians

Italian and Independent

Now that we’ve digested the onslaught of free music out there, some of us are looking for tunes that are completely different. Here are two suggestions: Italian and independent.

Italian

Italian music can be generally classified as light pop. Yes, they’ll occasionally kick it up a notch but dagos never encroach upon hard rock. Unfortunately, Italian rap is terrible. So you’ll have to listen late at night (say, after 9:00), when all the little rappers have gone to bed.

Here are a few tracks:

Laura Pausini featuring James Blunt – Primavera in Anticipo

Gianluca Grignani – La mia storia tra le dita

Cixi – Non Sono L’ultima

A good Italian radio station, Italia On Air, can be found at 1.FM.

Independent

Thanks to technology, today’s independent music scene is booming. It only costs $20/month to run a radio station and many focus on independent art. These stations usually play all sorts of genres so there’ll be songs you don’t like. But give one a chance and you’ll find something.

Here’s a sample:

Arden Leas – Josephine Song

What do you think?

Matrix Management

Everyone knows that good management is vitally important to any organization. Managers make a dramatic difference in worker and customer lives, and nothing gets done without leadership. But good managers are also difficult to find, so business is changing the role.

The job description of a typical manager involves the following:

Assist staff with performing their duties
Organize workload to keep everyone busy and customers satisfied
Think of better ways to do things
Develop and care for workers

The primary duty of any boss is to assist junior staff with their tasks. That’s why ol’ Bill became manager of the body shop—he knows how to fix cars best. And Bill might be good at prioritizing and scheduling work too, but he could be a light thinker with a miserable personality who turns off many a good soldier. And because managers like Bill are quite common (i.e., nobody does all the jobs well) business is breaking up the roles.

Develop

The first split is in administration. Companies are assigning everyone a secondary manager to handle employee development and all the administrative duties (like, salary and benefits). This new manager’s job is to develop employee potential and ensure good people don’t leave. And this duty typically involves owning a completely different skill set than what ol’ Bill has.

In larger companies, people are being pulled out of HR to actually manage. No longer is HR home to just handling mat leaves or the legal side of a termination. These folks are now managing the development of people (and these new positions are permanent—not drawn from a pool).

Sure, development managers still discuss employee evaluations with the assist manager, but they’re responsible for administering (not providing) employee training and helping everyone get better at the intangibles. Stuff that ol’ Bill has no idea of.

Assist, organize, and think

Manufacturing and auto body shops often designate a separate person to handle scheduling. And sometimes, senior tradespeople are assigned the task of assisting fellow workmates without being given the title of boss. So there already are alternative ways to address management’s role to assist and organize.

Thinking is different. Many businesses still bring in consultants when they should be using internal staff. Yes, consultants bring experience from various organizations but they never dig deep enough to fully understand your business and rarely do they stick around. So, in the long run, you’re better off having consultants teach existing staff how to think.

Conclusion

Good management is essential to any organization and, unfortunately, very few have it. Too much is being placed on first-level managers and they’re simply not super-people. As a result, cracks appear. Mostly in the area of employee development but also when it comes to thinking.

The message is clear, let ol’ Bill do what he’s good at and devise a system that addresses the rest. This new system involves having multiple managers to ensure staff get assistance, things are kept organized, better ways are constantly being thought of, and good people never leave.

It’s called matrix management.

Home Budgeting

Every household needs a budget and everyone should learn to live by one. But if you don’t, here are some samples to better understand the cost of living.

Most expenses can be broken into one of five categories: shelter, food, clothing, transportation, and luxuries. Shelter includes all utilities and insurance, food includes grocery store items plus eating out, and transportation includes all the costs of owning a car (if you have one).

Sara

Let’s start with Sara our hippie chick. Sara rents an apartment that includes utilities plus internet, uses only her cell phone, and takes public transit. Her expenses are as follows:

*Item*	*Monthly*	*Annual*
Rent	$600	$7,200
Phone – Cell	50	600
Home Furnishings	50	600
Groceries	350	4,200
Food – Out	150	1,800
Clothing	50	600
Transit Pass	100	1,200
Dental & Drugs	50	600
Haircuts & Hair Care	50	600
Entertainment	100	1.200
Vacations	100	1,200
Gifts	40	480
Bank & Finance Charges	10	120
Savings	100	1,200
Totals	$1,800	$21,600

In order to clear this amount, Sara needs to earn $24K / year. So she works an average of 35 hours per week for around $14.25 / hour.

Brian and Brenda

Now let’s look at a married couple who live in a house, have two kids, and a dog named Waldo.

*Item*	*Monthly*	*Annual*
Mortgage Interest	$400	$4,800
Mortgage Principle	1,000	12,000
Property Taxes	250	3,000
Gas/Heat	100	1,200
Power	150	1,800
Water	200	2,400
Television	75	900
Internet	75	900
Phone – Home	25	300
Phone – Cell (2 phones)	150	1,800
Home Insurance	75	900
Home Maintenance	200	2,400
Home Furnishings	200	2,400
Groceries	800	8,400
Food – Out	600	7,200
Clothing	500	6,000
Auto Depreciation (2 cars)	500	6,000
Auto Fuel (2 cars)	350	4,200
Auto Maintenance (2 cars)	250	3,000
Auto Insurance (2 cars)	200	2,400
Life Insurance	100	1,200
Childcare	1,000	12,000
Haircuts & Hair Care	100	1,200
Gym Memberships	100	1,200
Entertainment	400	4,800
Vacations	400	4,800
Gifts	200	2,400
Pet (Waldo)	150	1,800
Bank & Interest Charges	50	600
Savings (RRSP)	300	3,600
Totals	$9,000	$108,000

Collectively, Brian and Brenda earn $140K / year and pay all their taxes.

Summary

There are a number of points to make:

Cars cost lots of money.
Pets cost lots of money.
Sara budgets for dental and drugs because her company doesn’t have a benefit plan. Brian and Brenda both work for companies that do.
Sara is famous for using coupons, colours her own hair, and keeps in shape by walking or exercising at home. For gifts, she makes cookies or gives people her time (e.g., help clean house or paint a room) and makes awesome cards that are personal.
Smoking is another $150 / month (based on ½ pack per day). And if you drink a daily glass of wine, that’s another $1-200 / month (based on 4 glasses and $12-25 per bottle).

Employers need to understand their employee’s cost of living.
National inflation figures are off because they don’t take into account cultural shifts. For example, vacations and pets have become part of basic needs (and both cost loads of dough).
People in lower income positions often lack the ability to live on their earnings. That’s why so many have trouble with high interest rate purchases (e.g., don’t pay ’til May) and credit card debt.

Are you living within your means?

Global Warming

If I ever catch a genie in a bottle, I’ll ask for two things: bring back debating into high schools and stop unqualified people from saying things like, “And of course, we all know.”

Nothing highlights these wishes better than the debate over climate change. There are literally no public videos where qualified experts discuss the matter all together. We just have clips from those representing one side or the other, or unqualified salespeople pushing an agenda. So if no debate exists, let’s make one.

IPCC

We’ll open with the opinions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, then present a contrarian and an endorser.

Dr. Patrick Moore

For the anti team, from sunny British Columbia, we have Patrick Moore. Dr. Moore is an ecologist and founding member of Greenpeace. To hear his story, click below.

Dr. James Hansen

And for the pro side, we have James Hansen. Dr. Hansen is an earth scientist from Columbia University and former NASA scientist. To hear his story, click below.

Now if five qualified technicians analyzed your computer or six mechanics looked under your hood, do you think they’d be this far apart? And wouldn’t they temper their proposals with comments like, “It’s our best bet” or “We’re pretty sure”—like medical doctors do?

Knowledge vs. trust

The truth is: you and I don’t know anything about this issue. We’re not scientists, we’re not scientists in this particular area, and even if we were—it doesn’t mean we’d be any good at it. So we have no idea how much of this is guesswork. All we can do is trust.

We trust all the time and sometimes we get scammed. Americans trusted George W. about “weapons of mass destruction,” Canadians trusted Bre-X that there was gold in that mine, and Germans trusted Hitler. So could carbon tax be another one? If it were, here’s how they’d do it.

Brainwashing

Social brainwashing is the act of manipulating the public mind. It has three components:

Flood people with information
Appeal to their emotions
Make it a crisis

The article, Opinions, says your thoughts are partially controlled by what you’ve been taught. If I keep teaching that Quebec is a net contributor to the tax system or that the holocaust didn’t really happen, you’ll start thinking my way. The article, Why School, says most people are equipped to learn and reason, but light when it comes to critical thinking. So educated people form a perfect target—give them five pieces of information and they’ll think they know something.

The article, Power, Pleasure, Purpose, says people are motivated by one of three drivers. Hitler used power to rally his troops (appropriate since 1920s-30s German families weren’t known for warmth and the country had just been decimated). Today’s motivators connect with purpose. Left-wing documentaries and speeches emotionally assault us into believing only Lucifer himself could see things differently. And so do American conservatives when they make fun of the Christian right.

Lastly, major issues are always presented as a crisis to force people into acting before they give other considerations their due. This method of eliminating all opposition was used during the financial crisis of 2008. US politicians had only a weekend to authorize an $800 billion bailout.

Conclusion

If five out of six mechanics told me to change my muffler, I’d probably do it. But if it meant greatly altering my lifestyle, I’d try really hard to understand what that sixth mechanic was trying to say.

The determining questions are:

Is the planet warming?
Is this warming dangerous?
Is CO2 the cause of warming?
How much of CO2 buildup is related to human activity vs. nature?
How sure are we of these answers?

In the work world, we don’t pay attention to unqualified comments. If we need a new copier, we don’t ask the postman. But for some reason, when it comes to climate, we’ll listen to almost anyone and take them seriously.

Personally, I’m leery of movie actors explaining to me scientific facts. I feel scientists are perfectly capable of doing this themselves. They teach at universities, don’t they?

And why is this even a public issue? When we introduced laws to control pollution, ban DDT, eliminate asbestos, and a host of other items—they just did it. I don’t remember the caravan of do-gooders running around soliciting public approval. So if we need to save the planet, go ahead and save it. Then again, what do I know—I’m not a rock star.

Fighting

Men and women fight different—and it’s about time somebody put it down on paper.

Women go crazy

Let’s get right to it: we love you, girls, but you’re freaking nuts.

All female actions and reactions should not be judged by logic and every man needs to know just how to manage a crazy spell. We can’t explain, intercept, or successfully predict them or their outcome. All we know is these outbursts occur from time to time, and that’s just the price of having a girl.

Women are definitely the more emotionally advanced of the sexes; losing it on occasion seems to be a consequence of this. And when they do, they can spew some pretty nasty stew.

Men explode

Chicks let you take something back, which is great. Shelley can call her sister a “bitch-whore-slut” one day, apologize, and then go shopping with her the next. Men aren’t like that.

Men have a system where there’s a line, and once you cross it—no forgiveness. They’ll fire a warning shot when Buddy’s getting close. And if Buddy keeps coming—bang, punch in the nose, and we’re done.

Conflict management

Fighting isn’t the same as having an argument. Arguing can be calm, fighting is not.

Women have the ability to spew venom for hours without limits. But this just isn’t the case with boys, and it’s important for women to understand this distinction. Men have a point where you simply must stop. And they’ll react very strongly when you get there.

Men on the other hand, must learn to walk away. Women can’t always restrict themselves during a rampage so it’s ridiculous to expect them to manage such conflict. That’s a man’s job. Which means, even though it’s your own home—you must leave.

Remember, a gentleman never insists on winning a fight and always maintains control when dealing with a lady. The Barenaked Ladies have a lyric that goes, learn to lose, it’s easier that way.

Good advice.

Note: This excerpt comes from the book, Marriage Figured Out.

Punctuation

There’s nothing worse than seeing an email that violates the rules of punctuation. It’s okay if you’re an immigrant, but most of us were born here. Here are some rules to go by.

Single space after a period – older people were taught to leave two spaces because of typewriters. That’s over—now, it’s just one.

Contractions – contractions are words like I’m, we’ll, they’re, you’ve, let’s, and shouldn’t. Use them all the time. Write “it’s” instead of “it is” and “you’re” instead of “you are.” It’s a common mistake because we’re not all great typers. So many of us have to reread and edit everything.

Apostrophes – denote ownership (e.g., John’s book) or are for contractions. They don’t make something plural. For example it’s the 1970s, not the 1970’s. The only exception is when you say A’s and B’s, because without the apostrophe it would be, As.

Italics – italics are for emphasis. Many times we use exclamation marks or quotations instead, but that’s wrong. Exclamation marks indicate that someone is exclaiming something (e.g., Billy said, “Hey, look out!”). Quotes identify dialog (e.g., Billy said, “Hey, look out!”).

Italics are also used for naming works of art like books, movies, albums, and plays. For example, my favourite board game is Funny You Should Ask.
Quotations are also used for sarcasm. For example, the product was supposed to last “forever.”

Bold and underlining – nobody uses them anymore. Use italics for emphasis.

Periods and parentheses – anything inside of parentheses can be completely removed and the sentence should still make sense. If the whole sentence is in parentheses, then the period goes inside. Otherwise, it’s after (because you still need a period).

Some people call parentheses, brackets. These are brackets [ ] and these are parentheses ( ). Brackets are used in mathematics.

Another key to better writing is to eliminate unnecessary words. We’ll leave that and the fact you should write out numbers less than 10 for another time.

Who Votes What

Ever wonder how political pollsters view us—the public. And why politicians sometimes say the things they do. It’s because certain segments of the population are naturally aligned with certain political parties. Here’s how things line up for the conservatives:

serious businesspeople
hard-working, blue-collars
seniors

Serious businesspeople are a no-brainer because of their constant concern for the economy. Hard-working, blue-collars want to keep most of their hard-earned cash. And seniors adhere to the conservative adjective of not wishing for any revolutionary change. Stereotypical liberals include:

government workers
the economically weak
naive do-gooders

Government workers are understandable because conservatives are always trying to outsource their jobs. The economically weak have the most to gain from increased government programs. And naïve do-gooders are those who just want to feel nice.

Tree-huggers are another team for the left—since they absolutely abhor business—and super-Christians are all for the right, but we’re leaving them out since they hardly waiver. (And, of course, not all teachers vote left and every serious businessperson for the right, but a majority of them do—so we’re generalizing.)

Now you see why conservatives openly talk about government cuts. People affected don’t support them anyway. Likewise, liberals are comfortable bashing the rich because that’s not where they’re getting their vote. It’s also not surprising that the Alberta NDP instantly raised taxes only on the wealthy and didn’t cut one civil servant job (or a penny from anyone’s pay) when faced with tremendous deficits. They’re appeasing their base. But who’s most important are the swing voters. Ones that either party can lose if they don’t play their cards right. These groups are hard-working, blue-collars and naïve do-gooders.

Hard-working, blue-collars

Hard-working, blue-collars (or industry workers) like leaders they can relate to. Not intellectual supremacists who talk down to them, or artsy-fartsy weenies like Stephane Dion. They like real people who speak their language. That’s why they love guys like Ralph Klein, Doug Ford, and Donald J. in the States. He or she doesn’t have to be a genius.

Naive do-gooders

Naïve do-gooders are emotional believers who can easily be fooled. As a group they don’t need protection since they’re typically strong and productive. As a matter of fact, they’re net contributors to the system—not looking for a handout. What they want is the social status of being nice. As long as you make them feel this way, you’re good.

Years ago, society shifted to a system where parents became more nurturing and these kids grew up to be great. Not only did they become good people but goodness became a core to their being. And this new social status has affected everyone. Modern left and right-wing political machines have tapped into this need and preyed upon it. They’ve created the stigma that nice people only vote one way, by flooding the world with documentaries that make you feel bad. And sure, some of this is justified but give me a break—any serious issue deserves to be looked at from both sides. Think people, think.

Summary

Today’s parties chose leaders who can bring home the vote. They don’t need to be stars who can actually run the country or issue wisdom from high above. What leaders need is the ability to relate to everyday people and then make us all feel good. And sure, not every reader likes to be labelled and placed into a slot, but don’t kid yourself—pollsters look at this stuff.

Intangibles

Business people are always valued for what they know or can do—direct skills. A good dentist or machinist is always regarded as such, but intangibles also determine one’s worth inside any organization.

Job descriptions and employee evaluations usually have a section for things that aren’t directly related to doing the job. Here’s a general example:

Productivity – How much work do you get done in a day? In mathematical terms: productivity = effort X efficiency. So, do you have a good work ethic and are you reasonably efficient?
Quality – Rank the quality of your work. Do you do 100% of the job the first time or just enough to get by?
Intelligence – Are you properly educated for the position and do you have the ability to learn? Do you use good common sense? Do you have the creative thinking ability to develop better ways of doing things?
Organization – Are you organized in your duties? Is your workspace neat and tidy?
Problem Solving – Do you have the resourcefulness to solve problems or do you usually just take them to others?
People Skills – Do you communicate well? Are you likable to customers and fellow staff? Do you have sensors to read people and adjust to different situations?
General Business – Do you generally get the concepts of business, that: products must be sold for more than they cost, money must be collected, customers must receive value, and quality is good for everyone?
Team Member – Do you work well with others or do you create drama? Are you mature? Do you perform administrative duties well (e.g., timesheets, expense statements)? Are you honest or do you cheat? Are you loyal to the organization or are you constantly reading the classifieds?
Management skills – Do you have the additional skills required to eventually become a manager. Are you a natural leader?

As you can see, many important skills fall under the category of intangibles. Sure, some of them are easy but there’s a lot more to being a good worker than just doing the job.

Senate Reform

For years, people have been saying Canada’s senate is broken because it’s appointed and has veto powers. Most democratic thinkers don’t believe such power should rest with an appointed body. There are three popular alternatives:

Elected and powerful
Appointed and advisory
Abolished

The senate could become worthy of its authority by being made elected, it could be stripped of its power and changed to an advisory body, or abolished all together.

The elected option asks whether we need to appease a separate circle every time we wish to pass legislation. The advisory option isn’t as lame as you think — because that’s what Britain does. And abolition would remove a number of members (assuming they’re redundant) thereby saving a whack of cash. In all cases, constitutional change is required, which is a very big deal.

Constitution

Our Canadian system requires that any change to the constitutional be adopted by the House of Commons, the Senate, and 7 out of 10 provinces — representing over 50% of the population.

Our constitution, patriated in 1982, has had 11 minor amendments but both attempts at major change have failed. The Meech Lake Accord (1987) attempted to get Quebec’s endorsement (they didn’t sign in ’82, but are still bound). It failed when Manitoba and Newfoundland couldn’t ratify the changes by the deadline. The Charlottetown Accord (1992) tried a similar thing but was defeated by a nationwide referendum. Both accords occurred under leader, Brian Mulroney.

Supreme Court

Our constitution is a legal document that legislators can’t get around. That’s why we have a supreme court to ensure every piece of legislation is legit. So no matter how important the House may think it is, politicians can’t pass anything that violates the constitution. As a result, the Supreme Court is a power check on our elected officials.

England

Cheery old England was initially ruled by a monarch who relied upon nobles for help. In 1215, the nobles forced King John into signing the Magna Carta, which made him share power — specifically in the area of raising taxes (he couldn’t raise them without them). 50 years later, England added an elected element called the House of Commons. So they had a three-tier system:

Monarch <==> Appointed House of Lords <==> Elected House of Commons

Power gradually shifted to the elected body, highlighted by the Glorious Revolution in 1688. That’s when the monarch’s role changed to that of a constitutional monarch — meaning, he or she still had executive powers but those powers were assigned by the elected house.

More importantly, for the sake of this discussion, the House of Lords continues to be appointed. Previously consisting of only the rich, today’s group includes distinguished members from across many fields. Not just former prime ministers and military chiefs, but also senior industry leaders and artists who’ve formed the country’s social fabric — basically, citizens valued for their opinion. And though virtually powerless, this body is heavily influential when it comes to public opinion. For example, during the debate over the 2003 invasion of Iraq, views from the Lords were greatly respected.

USA

Established in 1776, America also decided on a three-tier system. But in their version, the king is elected (president), house representatives are elected every two years (not four), and the senate is elected to six year terms (one third, every two). Plus the senate is geographically representative by holding two members per state. Add a constitution and supreme court, and you see Yanks are loaded with checks and balances.

Yes, the president has executive powers but he or she cannot pass money bills or go to war without the consent of congress (the house and senate).

Canada

Canada liked the American twist of regional representation but kept the British style of making the senate appointed. And herein lies the issue. Maybe that was good for 1867 but is it still relevant today? (Especially knowing that Britain has declawed their own.)

In our 2015 federal election, the NDP were in favour of abolishing the senate while Stephen Harper wanted it elected. (Harper actually tried to appoint only senators who were first elected within their respective provinces but the premiers didn’t go for it). Our new liberal government likes the idea of an appointed body and have opened it up to where anyone can apply (kind of like getting on a game show), but the Canadian senate still owns voting powers. In the end, the debate will continue until the country reaches some consensus because we don’t want to open up the constitution until we’re really sure something will pass.

Notes: The US Senate was initially appointed by state legislatures. The 17^th amendment, passed in 1913, changed it to elected positions.

Before 1982, we just had the British North America Act (with no local amending formula) and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Both were incorporated into our constitution. To see the whole package, click here.

Meech Lake included changing the amending formula from 7 out of 10 provinces to all 10. This new formula was used for passing the accord. That’s why Manitoba or Newfoundland could bring it down.