The Menso Guide to Leadership, World Issues and just about everything else

I am not a fan of “identity”. Identity connotes belonging to exclusive groups such as a nation, religion or race. I believe your identity should come entirely from your personality (which is, no doubt, created mostly by the groups you belong to), meaning that, rather than being proudly and irrevocably bonded to a group, you choose your friends and affiliations with your values, not your “identity”, in mind. Your definition of identity is probably different from mine, but this is the one I disturbingly find most common.

A recent book by Amartya Sen called Identity and Violence: the Illusion of Destiny shows us the arbitrariness of collective identity with an example. Right now, if you are born within the confines of a set of borders, you become a member of an exclusive group. Well, with a little imagination, suppose that, instead of location of your birth, humans grouped ourselves based on shoe size. All the world’s size 9 people would form a nation and would possibly be contemplating war with the evil size 12 people across the border. But don’t people from the same country share values? Yes, because of their socialisation. If all size 9 people lived in one country and size 12s in another, they would be just as different as two different countries. I am just as opposed to identity based on national association as that based on shoe size.

That is one thing I love about the huge online networking site, Facebook. On Facebook you will find an incredible number of groups based on any common ground one could possibly find. People are linking together not over race or religion but on groups with names such as “Lisa Simpson for President” (334 members), “Blues dance keeps away my blues” (543 members) and “Addicted to Tim Horton’s” (4,600 members and counting). There are some thousand groups for fans of Grey’s Anatomy. There are plenty of serious causes, organisations, languages and so on, but I am intrigued by the other groups, the groups that, until the advent of Facebook (or at least, the internet), were not groups at all. And though they are not particularly serious groups on Facebook (“I wear glasses and therefore I’m cool” is not likely to replace England, Islam or African-American as a source of primary identity anytime soon), I believe they reveal, on a global scale, the futility of national, racial or other forms of identity. What this tells me is that the traditional, exclusive ideas of identity are collapsing all over the world and are not being replaced. I, for one, rejoice at the prospect.

On a registration form for a speech competition I entered several months ago, I was asked to list my biggest achievements. I put “many successful relationships”. Perhaps it strikes you as a strange achievement. Putting aside the definition of “successful” (until a later post), would you say you have had many successful relationships? Have you ever sat down to think why a relationship goes well or poorly?

I might be alone in this but my relationships with others are my highest value. I define relationships broadly. For me there are four categories.

1) romantic
2) intimates, your close friends and family members
3) good friends
4) acquaintances, coworkers, partners and neighbours.

All but the romantic category (in some cultures, anyway) can have as many people in them as you want. Here are some tips for starting relationships.

To be a good lover, be a good friend. If you have never had good friends, you will not understand how to trust and be trustworthy, how to open and be open, loyal, caring, helpful and understanding.

Trust your instincts. If your initial reaction to someone is that you think you could have a good relationship with this person, as a lover or a friend, go with it. You know what kind of people you like. When you meet them, you know nothing about them but a part of your brain tells you you like them. Listen to it. You don’t need to know everything. Initial reaction is everything.

BUT before you leap into a commitment with someone (eg. moving in together, getting married, having children or even just saying “I love you”), make sure of a few things.

You must have some of your assumptions about the world in common. For example, I am an optimist, a capitalist and an interculturalist. If I tried loving a pessimist, a communist or a racist, we would be fighting all the time; and not just about how to organise society but how to spend our time together, where to live, how to raise the children, and so on.

“Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know that.” Good. Because many people get so caught up in the initial flurry of passion that they make rash decisions—like marrying someone they are not compatible with—and get divorced. Let’s continue with my advice.

Know yourself. What do you want out of life? To travel and never settle down, to live and die in comfort, to meet as many new people as you can or to work every waking hour? What kind of person are you? The kind that runs away from conflict, welcomes it as a path to resolution, sees it as a necessary but unpleasant part of a relationship or lets argument turn violent? Ask yourself this type of question. And you don’t have to find someone identical to you (in fact, whenever I meet someone like me I am more turned off than interested) but the better you know yourself, the better you will know who is right for you.

I hope you were not looking for the “where to meet women” or “what to do on a first date” post because clearly this is not one of those articles. Those are cheap and, frankly, useless. If you want to have successful relationships, be a good friend, trust your instincts, have assumptions in common and know yourself well. Those are my four suggestions. Do you have any others?

I have been called judgemental by three people in my writing about China. At first I accepted it but I have since decided that I have been labeled with unfair abandon.

I will admit to being judgemental if you admit that anyone with an opinion is judgemental. Sometimes I am called judgemental for disagreeing with others’ actions or values, which may be fair; but can’t I complain about anything without being called judgemental? Or am I only allowed to complain about things from “my country”? Judging something means saying if it is good or bad. For example, am I judgemental because I believe that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)’s tight grip on power in China is wrong? So call me judgemental. So I think dictatorship is wrong because it tramples on universal human rights (which China signed up to) like freedom. The only people who do not value freedom are those who take theirs for granted or those who have not experienced it. (Incidentally, I would have posted this on my blog earlier but in China I am not allowed to use or view blogs.) This may also be a good time to mention that my values are not supplied by “my country”, since I don’t think of myself as having a country, but by my experiences. So are yours, actually. Go get more experience and then challenge your own views a little more.

Hate it or love it, I am a very opinionated person with strong ideas of what is right and wrong. And I am not closed minded, either. My beliefs are firm enough that I feel I know what is right and wrong and yet fluid enough that I continually challenge even my most basic principles. Next time don’t be so quick to throw around a label like “judgemental”. If you read this blog, you will have heard me judge many things and I am not about to stop saying what I think because I’m afraid of offending a few billion people. Instead of getting insulted, consider that I might be right.

This post is directed at the American people who, popular jokes notwithstanding, hold their representatives in Congress and the White House accountable for their actions. Right now their actions are disastrous and the people have none but themselves to blame. The war in Iraq—and Afghanistan, but Americans seem to have all but forgotten about that one—whether justifiable or not, are not over and the people should stop their Congresspeople’s reckless, populist and myopic moves to end US involvement in those two countries.

Reckless: Pulling the troops out would confine the Iraqis to the civil war the extremists are so desperate to impose. An American presence can, if given time and suitable strategy, bring order. And I understand, you’re impatient. You live in an impatient culture. The United States is the country of drive thru fast food and seven minute abs, where every product promises instant success or satisfaction. Your reckless abandon in the wake of a terrorist attack led to a major war and since the Bush administration’s promises of instant success were unfounded, you didn’t get the McWar you were expecting. Too bad. If there is one thing the American people should have learned in their more than two hundred years as a nation, it is not to believe anything their government tells them. You fell for the lies, despite all protests and evidence to the contrary, so now you must deal with the mess you made.

Populist: Just because the people want to bring the boys back home does not make it a good idea. In 2003, the majority of Americans supported the war in Iraq; now they want it over. Congress is, of course, nothing more than the servants of the people, so they are ready to vote to bring the troops back to the US. Troops are dying in Iraq—so what did you expect? Did you really think that, just because they were American they were invincible? That only a small handful would die in a few weeks of fighting before democracy suddenly sprang from the ground to save everyone? I liken the US’s efforts in Iraq to a man stung by a bee who runs into the hive with a shotgun. The man is not equipped for fighting bees and will get harshly stung in his lust for revenge. Or to take the analogy further, the man was stung by a bee and attacked his cat. He picked the wrong target and is having his eyes scratched out. That is the price he pays for revenge.

On the populist note, many in the US wear little yellow ribbons and put similar symbols on the bumpers of their cars. “Support our troops” is very easy to say but no one seems to know how to do it. Everyone is in favour of supporting the troops and yet they approve of the tax cuts that cut the troops’ funding for the best equipment, their pay and their pensions. Support the troops—easy to say, inconvenient to do.

Instead of the two parties without any principles, consider voting Libertarian for a change. The Libertarian Party is one of principle that does not endorse costly and foolish military adventurism.

Myopic: Congress can’t see forward and is equally incapable of seeing behind it. Perhaps the politicians have forgotten that many of them heartily endorsed going to war in the first place. Now they advocate leaving? You fight a war until it is over. The two weeks it took to get to Baghdad were obviously not enough to finish the job. Leaving now would be only to have removed Saddam Hussein’s regime and killed thousands of people with no positive results. When Afghanistan was abandoned and forgotten after the end of the Cold War it became the place in which the biggest terrorist attack in history was planned. Iraq will be next if it is abandoned.

And with equally poor foresight, many are pushing for a withdrawal timetable and deadlines. What a boon for the extremist militas. All they would need to do is lie low for a while, perhaps gathering followers, wait for the US to leave and then come out of hiding and do their worst. As usual, innocent people and moderates who want peace will get caught in the middle and will be killed. Is that what you want? Or do you simply not care?

My proposal (though not just mine) for Iraq is to divide it. Like most countries, Iraq was demarcated by imperialists who did not understand the places they were drawing borders around. Iraq’s borders are archaic. Divide it along ethnic lines into smaller, more viable states that are easier for governments to control. There is very little national unity, the elected officials and security forces think only in terms of their ethnic groups, the Kurds have been pushing for independence for decades, and majority rule could exacerbate ethnic tensions. My fear with this proposal is a repeat of the horribly bloody partition of India; but could it be worse than what is already happening?

And even if I am wrong, even if there is no hope for security in Iraq for the next 100 years, the basic problem remains. Incensed after a terrorist attack or similar provocation, a populace will approve a war anywhere in the world; but the minute there is a chance that its soldiers will die, it thinks twice. It is extremely irresponsible to begin something as serious as a war and not finish it. Public approval is essential for a war. Supporting a war must be carefully considered and then not simply reneged. Sadly, we are fickle humans with fickle morals that shift with the news reports, and when things don’t go our way we change our minds. But when we throw our cheap but essential support behind a war we must not forget the goals of that war when the body bags come back, as they inevitably will. Anything less would be reckless hypocrisy.

I was considering ending this post there, but I feel compelled to continue. I have heard a number of arguments for recalling troops from Iraq and the best came from Richard Holbrooke, former US ambassador to the United Nations and columnist for the Washington Post. Read his article here. He reminds us that, not only are there not enough troops available to secure a victory, as poorly envisioned as that is (so let us envision order and democracy), but, most importantly, the White House is incapable of taking us there. An administration with no military experience thought it knew better than the generals in the field and dismissed their advice and all proposals they received out of hand. A defense secretary with a penchant for breaking the rules allowed (and perhaps approved) torture of Iraqis, no one prevented the post war looting of Baghdad or any of the destruction and violence that followed. As much as I would like to believe the words I wrote in the main body of this post, I have no confidence in George W. Bush, his team or Congress to judge what is best for Iraq. The only point I made that I feel needs reiterating is the following. If you are going to support something as serious as a war, do so with commensurate seriousness. ANYTHING LESS WOULD BE RECKLESS HYPOCRISY.

I have trouble believing how naive we can be. The National (Canada’s national daily news program) ran a story tonight asking if we should expect documentaries to tell the truth. Their example was Michael Moore and his movies, saying that Moore’s work was not all true and were more entertaining than informative. You expect the truth from the media? Don’t.

Why would documentaries tell us “the truth”? Do we expect the truth from newspapers and news programs? The truth is a very complex idea–there is no natural, objective truth out there because everyone sees things differently. No one person, medium or religion will ever tell you the truth. If you keep your mind open for debate, like I said in my last post, you will learn. Michael Moore provides but one point of view in the sea of opinions we call the media. Seeking the truth is like digging for gold in your backyard: there may be some there, but you’ll be digging a long time.

So keep digging if you like, but a better idea would be to listen to everyone’s case and never completely make up your mind.

Why do we hear people tell us that climate change is proven, there is a consensus in the scientific community on it and there is no more debate on the subject? These assumptions scare me more than climate change itself.

Of all the books that exist on the environment, the Menso Guide to Life’s recommendation is the Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomborg. His thesis is that the environmental alarmists are wrong. Through careful analysis of data that is available to all of us, we can see that many environmental “problems” such as air and water pollution, depletion of natural resources such as minerals, forests and arable land are not problems at all. Instead, postulates Lomborg, we should put our precious human resources to work tackling the real problems, such as sustainable management of fresh water where it is scarce, and reducing air pollution in big cities in the developing world. We have the data; our next step should be to prioritise. If climate change is a priority, it deserves rigorous debate.

Bjorn Lomborg and I are not cynical people. Cynics are people who automatically do not believe what they hear. Skeptics, on the other hand, are those who question the knowledge of themselves and others, and educate themselves on the many different sides to the issues that concern them. Cynical versus skeptical is the difference between an open and a closed mind. Be skeptical whenever someone attempts to close a debate. Be suspicious even when someone tries to narrow the discourse by, say, dismissing evidence of beneficial effects of climate change or confining blame for it to humans. Discourse that closes minds rather than opening them is not discourse at all. “Consensus” is a pretty suspicious word in itself: it rhymes a little too well with “groupthink”.

Losing argument on any subject implies that you are no longer thinking critically about it. I see argument as an excellent way to gain (and spread) new perspectives. When we have decided there is no more debate, we’d better be damn sure we are not discarding our critical inquiry into the subject along with it. Debate keeps our brains sharp and reminds us that we can be certain about very little. And in case you need an impractical reason to argue, do it as a middle finger to any self righteous environmentalists who refuse to admit they might be wrong.

One problem with any debate is that everyone exaggerates to make their point. If we all take that into account, it is fine; but exaggerating to extremes or lying is wrong. Fearmongering is not the right way to get people on your side because they will turn against you when they see you are wrong. Alarmists want to make the situation more dire than it is because even in the best of times, hardly anyone stands up to act for a cause. If they say that there is no problem (or just a small problem), no one will do anything to combat it at all, and sooner or later it will be a problem. But if they say we’ll all die if we don’t act now, then best case, a few people start conserving energy, etc, and the small or nonexistent problem does not become big. But after fifty years of hearing about the impending crises caused by humankind’s mistreatment of the planet, and fifty years of being afraid of something that has not happened yet has led to three things: a militant environmental movement, a populace that makes misguided choices and a lot of cynicism about preserving the environment.

Many environmental theorists set limits that we have not reached and may never reach. A classic example is the best selling book Limits to Growth from 1972, which predicted we would run out of minerals like gold, silver and zinc by the 1990s, and most significantly, oil would be gone by 1992. In fact, if I had a penny for every chart I have seen with the year we will run out of oil on it, I would live in Beverly Hills. Not only do I think we have another century of oil left, I will go as far as to say we will never run out of oil. If you disagree, I encourage you to read this article and see where I’m coming from. But the limits imposed on us by the alarmists are unnecessary. For many reasons these people do not take into account (partly because no one predicted all the variables and partly because the future is never what we imagine), we have not run out of any of these “scarce” resources. Moreover, these alarmists seem to forget how adaptive humans are.

Part of the alarm comes from a belief that these limits are significant because our economies, our institutions, our society will collapse if we exceed them. Climate change will wreak havoc on the world because we are unprepared and foolish. I don’t believe it for a second. First of all, barring the possibility of a “Day After Tomorrow” type disaster, nothing happens suddenly. As things get worse, we will accord them a higher priority for our time and money, our human resources. Second, we have an unprecedented understanding of science today that, combined with our unprecedented wealth, will enable us to overcome environmental crises if and when they come. Third, humans are smart. We have always found ways of recovering after a crisis or turning crises into opportunities. We find solutions to all of our problems. If the sea levels rise, we will relocate people, and perhaps we will make new land or construct floating structures to live on. If oil runs out, we will create alternatives (for that matter, we already have them). If fish stocks go too low, we will regulate them even more, or we will learn to farm them sustainably. If the air becomes too polluted, we will stop driving and start planting more trees. Before you know it, we will have clean air again.

So stop worrying and get back to arguing like you should be. Here are some things we could be debating.

1. The effects of our behaviour on the environment. That means what are the most likely outcomes 50, 100 and 200 years from now. It includes the good that can come from climate change as well as the bad.

2. How we should allocate resources. If we are going to find solutions, we should know what are the most pressing problems. If we spent all our money on recycling or took every last car off the road we might feel good about ourselves for a while but we would not have solved anything. If climate change is the most pressing environmental issue, we must decide how to allocate resources to take it on.

3. What the individual’s role should be. I have two suggestions. You could live among the trees and the forest creatures, give up your wordly possessions and be at harmony with all nature. If you don’t want to do that, my second suggestion is continue to educate yourself on environmental issues and engage in debate about it with those around you. When we cease learning and debating, we have lost something even more precious than a stable climate.

As a single man in the city, I am no longer looking for a girl. I am looking for a woman. My acquaintance of so many girls over the years has led to my total disillusionment with them—but at least I have learned to identify them.

A girl is someone who will string you along for a week until she tells you she has a boyfriend. A girl will make you work all night to take her home and then disappear with her girlfriends. Girls will kiss you and then turn around and kiss someone else, wink at you and then never look at you again, get you to buy them a drink and then dance with another guy. I have had it with girls. If you are a girl, nice to meet you, we can be friends if you want, but you’re not my type anymore. I want a woman.

To both men and boys, girls are irrational. A girl will get angry with you for a joke you made and then cross her arms and stop talking to you; but when you cheat on her, she can forgive you. Girls will turn you down for sex just to show you they don’t want it, even though they want it just as much as you do! Why? Because your frustration is all part of the game.

Whether knowingly or without realising, girls treat men that like them as pawns. A girl goes out with a guy who likes her and waits till he tries to kiss her before she drops the “I have a boyfriend” bomb. If she didn’t know you liked her, she is naïve; and if she knew, you are there to build up her ego. “Thanks for paying for dinner, though!” A woman knows why you took her out and might even pay for her own meal—now there is a woman I want to buy dinner for. A woman will tell you her life story on the first date to see where you fit into it. She’s ready to have a real relationship, one based on understanding and love and trust, not games.

Now women, I sympathise with you: there are a lot of boys out there, boys that don’t understand and don’t try to understand women. These boys need to learn respect and responsibility (and perhaps listen to a couple of songs by Beyoncé) before you consider them. But there is already an entire industry devoted to the critique of the intractable immaturity of boys, and not enough on the girls that frustrate the hell out of men. (These definitions of men, women, boys and girls will hold for all future posts on this blog.)

Unlike a girl, you can trust a woman. A woman will do what she said she’ll do. If she asked you to meet her for lunch, she’ll be there—and she doesn’t have a boyfriend. If she flirts with you, it’s not to make her man jealous or her girlfriends laugh, it’s because she likes you. Women have experience in relationships, meaning they have both loved and lost. They have been hurt, so they understand their emotions. Now, they know what they want from a relationship. When they love, they love with all their hearts, and when they lose, they cry and then get over it because they are better than that.

So where are all the women? Are they getting older? Do girls stay girls for longer now? It is not unusual to meet girls of 25 or 30 years old. And yet, some of my best friends are women of fewer years. So I know you women are out there. But you will need to prove to me that you are no longer girls. That means no games, no lying, no cheating, just caring and tenderness and love.

To men, there is hope: the women you are looking for are out there. Don’t waste any more of your time waiting for girls to turn into women. To all you women out there, you deserve a real man: don’t stop looking till you find one. To those girls who have recently become women, don’t worry: you can keep the fun, adorable and affectionate sides of your nature alongside your newfound maturity. And to the girls: call me when you grow up.

This post is in response to the Economist’s most recent article on the Democratic presidential candidates, found here.

The Economist is a fine news magazine and I agree with most of what it says most of the time. However, in this article, they seem to believe that policy is more important than personality. I used to hold that view myself, until I realised that most politicians change their policies the minute they find an excuse to do so. I believe a politician’s personality, though difficult to ascertain of course, is a more accurate map to their tenure. Take, for instance, the Nixon-Kennedy race in 1960, and the famously televised debate they underwent. Many felt Kennedy had lost the debate because his policy was lacking. However, those who saw him on television believed he would be courageous, noble and decisive, and he was. Nixon appeared insecure and shifty, and his presidency turned out to be one of the most notoriously secretive and closed ever.

Mrs Clinton may have sound policy but she has certainly not persuaded me she is as honest or compassionate as Mr Obama. I expect her to cash in her chips of her political capital as soon as the tide turns against her.

The following is the speech I am giving at the final of the Golden Gavel speech competition.

Mr Master of Ceremonies, ladies and gentlemen. If there is one television programme I can say had the biggest impact on my sense of humour and my sense of fun; if there is one programme that taught me more about counting and reading than any other; if there is one programme that has the power to change the world, it is Sesame Street. This speech is a big thank you to the creators of the most wonderful show in the world.

Where else have we brought together Elton John, a six foot canary and a hundred hand puppets with individual personalities? Who could forget the wonder they felt watching Monsterpiece Theatre, hosted by Alistair Cookie, sitting there in his armchair, waiting to introduce a classic piece of theatre such as the Postman Always Rings Twice, starring Grover. Grover awaits his package as the baker, the florist, the movers, the drycleaner and the shoemaker enter, each ringing a different number of times, every character reminding us that “the postman always rings twice.” Grover eventually goes mad as his house fills up with people, when finally the postwoman makes it to his house. As Alistair Cookie returns to recap, his doorbell rings three times, indicating the cookie man is there, so he leaves without further comment.

Well, perhaps you have forgotten that particular scene, but no doubt the lessons of Sesame Street have made their imprint on anyone who watched. Children learn to count and spell, they learn a new language and they learn more about their culture. We learn how to accept people for who they are and not the groups they belong to. For adults, Sesame Street continues to exercise our imaginations with its witty satire and irony.

My favourite character is, without a doubt, Kermit. Kermit T. Frog (the T of course stands for “the”) is not only a leader in the show—the first one to take charge of difficult situations and the first to assume responsibility when things go wrong—but is also a versatile actor. He has been a reporter, an announcer and a stage performer all in the same episode. Could Tom Hanks do that? I don’t think so! But I’ve heard the criticism against Kermit. He loses his patience, loses his temper, gets rude and even irate, not qualities we want to promote to children—but we humans have our faults too, so it’s good that children learn that. Besides, we do learn to spell frog, and what could be more important? And if you’ve ever heard him sing or seen him dance, you will see just how talented frogs can be.

Sesame Street has spread to more than 120 countries. In South Africa, Sesame Street has a muppet with HIV to help children understand the disease that affects everyone. Children in Israel and Palestine can watch Sesame Street and see Jewish and Muslim children discussing their differences and their similarities and playing together despite them.

Sesame Street is still going strong into its 37^th season and will continue to entertain and educate all of us for many years. It has taught us, in deliciously bite sized morsels, the building blocks of life: culture, math, language, understanding ourselves and others. This speech was brought to you by the letters K and G and the number 5. Let us all take in an episode of Sesame Street again soon to remind us why it is the most wonderful show on earth. This has been Kermit T. Frog reporting live from Victoria, BC. Thank you very much.

We should modernise education all over the world. Basic education is adequate at teaching some things. It teaches us, to some extent, to use different parts of our brain, to get along and work with others, how to finger paint—but it is weak in many subjects that are so important in modern society. Here is my plan for reforming education: a list of the subjects we should teach in secondary schools.

Personal responsibility

-The first thing to teach anyone is that they are responsible for their direction in life, their actions and the way they change or accept things that happen to them. Once one accepts that fact, they will lead more fulfilling lives because they will stop blaming others for their fate and start taking action to achieve their goals.

Critical thinking

-Teach students many perspectives by giving them a variety of teachers from a variety of backgrounds—different countries, careers and skills. Teachers should not be afraid to show their students that they do not know everything, that there is more than one side to every matter, and that anyone, teachers, parents, government, etc, does not have all the answers. Critical thinking is something we should teach from elementary school.

Your legal rights

-Most of us do not know our rights as workers, employers or citizens. Don’t you think we should?

Financial awareness

-Financial law

-Accounting and budgeting

-Investing

-And while you’re at it, teach how important all these things are.

Teamwork

-Give them lots of opportunities to work in groups of 2 to 150, plus more to see if they can do it, then get them to analyse their team experiences.

-Giving and receiving feedback

-And all the other million aspects of working on a team.

Leadership

-How to lead

-How to recognise good and bad leaders

Adapting to and benefiting from change

-The world is changing rapidly and will continue to do so for a long time. Instead of starting wars like some people do, why don’t we teach people to take advantage of those changes? Any disadvantages that come with chaos can become opportunities. If we teach that change is good and could be your next business, people will welcome it.

How to find the right career

-Career services is a huge industry because throughout our lives we change careers several times and never know what is right for us. Bring in people from every conceivable job and level of experience once a week and help teenagers find their talents and their interests.

How to raise children

-How to decide if and when to have kids

-Apply it to babysitting and give them the chance to make money

-Bring in parents—mothers and fathers—to show them what to do

How to teach others

-Show them how to teach over a week

-Then, get them teaching their class something

-Then, get them to hand in a lesson plan: learning goals and measurement, how the lessons will go, how each contributes progressively to the learning goals, etc.

Entrepreneurship

-How to find opportunities

-How to start a business

-How to be entrepreneurial in your own job