SALT

Great action movies are thrilling and enjoyable, and SALT is a great action movie.  It provides that wonderful sense of tension, and doesn’t release you until it’s ready to.

I have read criticism that the movie and its main character, Evelyn Salt, are implausible – but that’s the exact beauty of it, and Angelina Jolie was the exact beauty to be playing Evelyn Salt.

There is a difference between “naturalism” and “romanticism” in art – the natural school wants to display people as they are in their normal every day, supposedly “natural”, settings; the romantic school provides characters that are performing the extraordinary – those who have superior gifts and display them proudly.

As philosopher and author Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead) so brilliantly noted, “(Romanticism) does not record or photograph; it creates and projects. It is concerned not with things as they are, but with things as they might be and ought to be.”  Evelyn Salt is the creation and projection of a romantic character in every sense of the word

Evelyn Salt is a well-regarded CIA Agent.  One day, a man walks into CIA headquarters to offer a juicy piece of intelligence – his name is Vassily Orlov.  Salt is asked to interrogate him, and the plot wastes no time in developing on the heels of this great exchange:

Salt – “What is your name?”

Orlov – “My name is Vassily Orlov.  Today a Russian agent will travel to New York City to kill the Russian President.  This agent is KA-12.”

Salt – “The KA program is a myth.”

Orlov – “Don’t you want to know the name?”

Salt – “You’re good.  You can tell the rest of your story to my colleagues.”

Orlov – “Salt.”

Salt – “Yes?”

Orlov – “The name of that agent is Evelyn Salt.”

Salt – “My name is Evelyn Salt.”

Orlov – “Then you are a Russian spy.”

Salt – “I’m not a goddamn Russian spy.”

At this moment, the movie slips into high gear.  Salt’s co-workers obviously want to find out what’s going on and pin her down inside the CIA headquarters.  She first desperately wants to reach her husband, but they won’t let her.  In Bourne-like fashion, she sets out to escape and elude them – first from CIA headquarters and then from the city.  In riveting chase scenes, she manages to escape.

And the audience is left wondering whether she is indeed the intended assassin or has been set-up.  There is the development of a mysterious story drifting back some 30 years to Russia about young children that were taken and highly trained from that young age to be of use later in life as imbedded spies.  Is Evelyn one of them?  Is she a double-agent or a mole?

As she’s running from the CIA – without so much as a blink of an eye, Salt is now in gear to “kill” the Russian President and seems to do so by outsmarting the best of the best.  Alas, no more plot spoilers will follow here.  Suffice it to say, the rest of the story is a great thriller and mystery as the audience tries to grasp who Evelyn Salt really is and whose side she’s on.

This movie is fun, thrilling, pro-American and offers a fantastic plot.  Highly recommended.

Rob Flitton
www.robflitton.com

WALL STREET: MONEY NEVER SLEEPS

Original Sin is a concept in religion that man is born evil or sinful. It proposes that the cure to this evil is to spend one’s entire life earning goodness by finding one’s way back to God through altruistic servitude to others and through rejection of materialism.

In ‘Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps’, Director Oliver Stone similarly proposes that all men have an inherently evil nature and that the highest manifestation of his evil nature is the practice of capitalism. Therefore, in Stone’s world view, it would follow that the sins of capitalism can only be absolved through altruistic servitude to others and through rejection of materialism, and he sets out to prove this through the development of his primary characters.

There are seven primary characters in this mixed-up, sloppy movie that ineptly explains the bubble burst of the economy – it seeks to lay the blame at the inherently greedy nature of man, as Stone views it.

Jake Moore (Shia LeBeouf) is a young up-and-coming financial analyst on Wall Street, and his love interest is Winnie Gekko, none other than the daughter of Gordon Gekko.

Winnie Gekko (Carey Mulligan) is an ardent left-wing blogger, who claims to be disinterested in money, but who lives with Jake in a trendy and expensive Manhattan loft.  She doesn’t seem bothered by what comforts money can bring her, and comes across a juvenile.

Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas), famous for his line “greed is good” from the 1987 prequel, has now been out of prison for a few years and written a best-selling book which is ostensibly an attempt to explain and absolve himself of his prior penchant for greed (to us, the movie-going audience). He spent a lengthy sentence in prison for insider trading. The day he left prison, no one was waiting for him.  Countering the prequel, we learn it was not Bud Fox (Charlie Sheen, who also makes an ill-timed and corny cameo appearance) that caused him to go to prison.

Louis Zabel (Frank Langella), bow-tie and all, is part of the royalty of Wall Street. He owns one of the major financial houses, and was responsible for guiding Jake Moore from a youthful caddie at his private golf club into a Wall Street player. Near the beginning we see Zabel giving Jake a bonus check for more than a million dollars, and predicting doom for the market.

Bretton James (Josh Brolin) is another major Wall Street player, and one of Zabel’s primary competitors. The doom for the market which Zabel predicted happens, and this is a representation of the real crash in the market of a few years ago – the firm names are changed, but it is clearly meant to represent Goldman Sachs, et. al. James and his much older partner Jules Steinhardt (Eli Wallach) are members of the Federal Reserve, and so is Zabel. Called into a major meeting of the reserve to advise the White House how to avert imminent disaster, Zabel is thrown under the bus and James and Steinhardt swallow his company and his life whole for nickels on the dollar.

Zabel, unable to stomach his life being swallowed whole, then kills himself.

Jake Moore’s mother (Susan Sarandon) is a real estate agent on Long Island who is buried deep in several real estate ventures as a result of the bubble. One can tell that real estate was once good to her, but now she constantly hawks Jake for sizable loans to keep her afloat.

Despite this fairly deep character development, it is essentially not well-thought out, and the obtuse plot subsequently suffers from a major identity-crisis.

Jake goes out of his way to meet Gordon Gekko behind Winnie’s back, motivating by meeting the legend and reuniting Gekko and Winnie. Winnie resists and warns Jake how dangerous Gekko really is under his new soft exterior.

One senses that Gekko is probably working some angle despite being an innocuous character. Gekko tells Jake that it was Bretton James (not Bud Fox) that put him in prison and he knows it. Jake also discovers that the actions of James and Steinhardt led to the death of Louis Zabel, and sets out for what amounts to a confusing revenge – he first fuels rumors costing James and Steinhardt a fortune, but then gleefully goes to work for him trying to forge some sketchy green-energy investment deal to please Winnie.

Sadly, to Oliver Stone, all of these characters represent some aspect of what destruction that the “sin” of capitalism leads to.

Gekko’s capitalism imprisoned for fraud, cost him his family, and then he became aimless and benign. Stone makes it so that Jake can only be moral if he throws aside all reason and pursues some green solution to energy usage, devoid of all profit motives. Billionaire James is a duplicitous predator bent solely on overindulgent opulence. Zabel is shown to achieve nothing in the end, which alleges that capitalism is not only immoral but futile. Steinhardt is a soulless old man who built his wealth over the bodies of countless hundreds. The bland Winnie, who has no materialism, is the “hero” – if there is one. Jake’s mother is sad and unhappy pursuing real estate until she sinks rock-bottom and returns to nursing.

Winnie lives in her trendy, expensive loft and controls a $100 million bank account in Switzerland entrusted to her by Gekko while he was away. In the climax – again, if there is one – Gekko cons Jake and Winnie to hand over the $100 million (they thought it would be invested in the green-energy thing).  And this is an awful thing Stone does.  It was Gekko’s money that he earned and he portrays Gekko as a thief for simply wanting it back.  This causes Jake and Winnie to split – even though she’s pregnant.

It is sad that Stone fails to realize that “greed” is the idea that one should attempt to acquire “unearned” material values.  However, capitalism would regard this definition of greed as a violation of another’s individual or property rights – whereas, capitalism is the antithesis of this and the social/political system that bans the taking of the unearned.

Under capitalism, the predatory theft of individual and property rights would be banned.

I had erroneously assumed that ‘Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps’, would make a direct frontal attack against capitalism. However, the attack instead comes in the form of an obtuse plot with far too many moving pieces and the stupidity of the character-development.

Thankfully, it doesn’t succeed, because capitalism is badly needed.

 

 

Rob Flitton
www.robflitton.com

WOMEN ONLY: A Brief Course on Negotiation – Part 2 of 3

In part one of this series, I discussed “winning” in negotiation – with the motive of validating those women who want to win fairly at the bargaining table and of demystifying some of the obstacles that keep them from doing so.

When negotiating with another person or group, you are trying to either buy or sell something, or trying to change view and opinions – in either case, the best results stem from “communication skills.”

The initial activity of smart negotiation is “research” – i.e., of gathering useful information while resisting the temptation to make any decisions.  Good communication skills allow you to win people over and gain as much information as possible from them without betraying your own values or secrets.

The subsequent activity of smart negotiation is to communicate well-crafted and creative proposals – or to actively consider or counter the proposals of the other side. And the key aspect of crafting great negotiation deals is communication.

It is commonly taken for granted that women are better communicators than men, and yet here is a man offering women advice on communicating in negotiations – the reason is that the vast majority of both men and women make serious communication mistakes in business.

It is my experience with the women who I have coached in negotiation that when they are committed to and active-minded about really understanding communicative issues, they gain a wonderful new level of success, relaxed self-confidence, and stellar reputation. And here is the structure of what I recommend:

Face-to-Face. Negotiate face-to-face wherever possible.

Consistency. Being inconsistent in communicating makes someone seem flaky and unreliable.  Someone who has irregular patterns and content cannot be trusted.

Absolute Accuracy. It is fundamentally important to never say or communicate anything that isn’t correct.

Vision and Clarity. A great negotiator is able to create and present an attractive vision or idea that other wants to buy into and accept.

Proper Grammar. Poor grammar communicates a lack of value, interest, education and intelligence.  How does someone expect to negotiate a meaningful business deal when the other party doesn’t have confidence that they can even write out the contract?

Don’t Drive Agendas. Someone who drives an agenda is manipulative.  He or she provides their feelings or subjective evaluation of the facts before or without providing the actual facts.

Say Things Nicely. There is rarely a need to be rude or harsh when telling someone something controversial about themselves or their product – saying such things nicely takes effort and sensitivity.

Admit the Negatives. Admit mistakes or negativity without blame, excuse or qualification.

Deliver Bad News Promptly. If you have something negative or controversial you need to tell someone, you lose trust, friendship and appreciation by sitting on the information.

Relevancy. Agreement can be thwarted by detracting from the relevant context and from what’s germane or at hand.

Don’t Banter Aimlessly. There is always proper context and timing for being carefree in communicating, and the midst of negotiating is neither the right context nor time.

Part 3 … STAY TUNED!

Rob Flitton
www.robflitton.com

VITUS

“We have a real wunderkind” – Vitus’s parents

In her novel Atlas Shrugged (Part 3 Chapter VI), and in her non-fiction essay The Comprachicos, author and philosopher Ayn Rand brilliantly describes a scene of a youth who has been intellectually and emotionally hobbled by a modern, progressive education.

“Men would shudder, he thought, if they saw a mother bird plucking the feathers from the wings of her young – yet that was what they did to their children.  Armed with nothing but meaningless phrases, this boy had been thrown to fight for existence, he had hobbled and groped through a brief, doomed effort, he had screamed his indignant, bewildered protest – and had perished in his first attempt to soar on his mangled wings.”

Vitus von Holzen, the central character of the compelling and brilliant movie VITUS, is not this boy – instead, he is the boy who actually soars, literally and figuratively, and demonstrates the full capacity of the human mind and spirit – and the results of a rational education.

His parents recognize his genius immediately – a piano prodigy by age 6 and a world-class virtuoso by age 12 – a serious and focused boy who also loves joy.  He loves piano, his grandfather, chess, stock-investing, flying airplanes, and a feisty older woman named Isabel, 19, who he fearlessly courts.  School bores him and he doesn’t seem to need friends – his only joy at school is to make teachers look hapless and inept.

The movie opens with Vitus ‘stealing’ an airplane – yet we come to learn this is actually the end of the movie.  He slams the door shut on the shiny single-propeller plane and taxies away with adults chasing after to stop him.  He soars off of the runway and into the open sky.

But the central plot of the movie is focused on Vitus’s desire to be someone else.  And why on earth would such a gifted human being want to be someone else?  Because, he is constantly bombarded with altruistic demands from his parents, his teachers, his mentors – they all want him to be and perform as they see fit.  And the one exception in his life is his gentle but wise grandfather, and Vitus finds a trusted, private, rational sanctuary during the visits he makes to his grandfather’s home.

Altruism ruins life and greatness before it can begin.  Altruism is the sick doctrine that self-sacrifice is to be considered as a virtue.  It demands that men be equal, and that the sacrifices must come from the expense of the good to the benefit of the bad.  In Vitus’s case, altruism seeks to make him the domain and property of others – a martyrdom of his individuality in favor of an unworthy audience.  The ambitions of others is what he is expected to achieve and live for – to make them validated, rich and happy.

Vitus seems to sense this, but cannot name it, so he withdraws and his brilliant talent and stunning intelligence seem suddenly to have disappeared – he “shrugs” just in the same way the heroes of Atlas Shrugged do, and withdraws his talents from the world.  He suddenly cannot play simple pieces on the piano, loses to his grandfather at chess, and has become merely average at school – to the shock and horror of his parents, but without raising even and eyebrow from his grandfather.

When Vitus’s grandfather, though, comes into some financial worries, 12 year old Vitus secretly puts his brilliance back to work and invests his grandfather’s last savings parlaying it into substantial wealth in a short time.

Why stop there?  He leases some office space and establishes a highly profitable investment business – and remember he’s still only 12.  His grandfather’s financial worries are over and is even able to purchase a brand new single-propeller airplane achieve a life-long dream of being a pilot.

We come to realize that Vitus indeed did understand the nature and source of the altruism attacking his life, and all this time had been staking his claim to be who he is on his own terms and conditions.  As his grandfather becomes wise to the secret Vitus has been hiding, Vitus chuckles and says:

“The hardest part was losing that game of chess!”

Ayn Rand was a stellar and unparalleled champion of reason and individualism.  In her writing we discover the evils that are put upon children with young, eager and malleable minds – we see how their rational faculty and capacity is stunted and thwarted and how they’re expected to live life on this earth without it.  We see how they are denied the privacy and sanctity of their individuality and told that they must have unchosen duties and obligations.  Ayn Rand saved my mind from such evils – I suspect Vitus figured it out on his own.

Vitus is one of my favorite films of all time because of the sense of joy I get when I see the courage, wisdom and shining brilliance of a young boy who tosses off the shackles of those that want to own him.  His parents come to learn that they actually don’t have a wunderkind – Vitus owns himself, and soars only for his own sake.

Rob Flitton
www.robflitton.com

WOMEN ONLY: A Brief Course on Negotiation – Part 1 of 3

Upfront, I always like to ask two questions of my women clients.

Do you want to win?  Are you worthy of winning?

And by winning, I mean winning without any negative side-effects … meaning that you won’t hurt anyone else or lose some aspect of yourself.

Would you like to do that?  Are you worthy of it?

Because … by my estimation, this ought to be the goal of every rational person.  Winning and succeeding is the basis for creating the economic value and leverage that improves our lives.

Each person is – or ought to be – responsible for their own outcomes – they ought to be independent.  Winning is not a burden placed on others, nor a burden placed on you.  One ought to be able to win free of any unearned guilt or interference.

And part of winning is to effectively and profitably conduct fair trade with others … by negotiating.  And do you know that even though most small businesses in America today are owned by women, time and time again, the majority of negotiation questions I receive are from women.

And their questions are remarkably good.  But why the lopsided interest in negotiation by women, though?

I want to keep my answer as simple as possible, but first I need to clarify just some of the roadblocks, fears and misunderstandings that women tell me they face:

-       being manipulated or rushed

-       subject-matter inferiority

-       allowing emotions to cloud judgments or actions

-       taking things personally

-       accepting unearned guilt or having undue pity

-       doubt about worthiness or uneasiness about asserting self-value

In my recent negotiation book (www.negotiationforlifeandbusiness.com) and in my courses, I point out that people need to understand the following three very important aspects of the self, and that all breakdowns in negotiating with others stem in essence (i.e., at the root of it all) from mistakes made in these aspects of the self.

Reason
Purpose
Self-esteem

Reason is fundamentally necessary for life.  It is your only tool and source of knowledge, and the faculty of your mind that processes and evaluates proposals and information.  It is reason that tells you what to do with your life and how to do it, what to include and exclude, and what is in your favor and opposed to you.

Purpose is the individual and personal choice you make as to what to spend the precious time of your life undertaking – that which you want to achieve and win at.

Self-esteem is the assessment that you make of yourself that you are: (i) competent to think and deal with life rationally and independently, and (ii) worthy of winning, succeeding and the resulting happiness.

Whether you are a ballet-dancer, corporate manager, independent sales representative, planner, author, consultant, home-business operator, or whatever, you will need to know how to negotiate and bargain with others as a life-long skill.

Aside from being essential to life itself, focusing continually on these 3 aspects of the self is the basis for protecting oneself in a negotiation – and in doing well financially in the negotiation.

A rational, purposeful woman of bona fide self-esteem (not faked self-esteem) cannot be manipulated or rushed.  She decides when she’s ready to and not before.

When she doesn’t know the subject matter, she independently researches it using her own judgment, or talks to the right experts.  Nothing enters her subconscious without her prior permission.

Her emotions give instant and often reliable feedback to her as to whether or not something is (i) good, or (ii) bad.  But she keeps her emotions private when necessary and doesn’t allow them to overrule her reason.  She’ll feel the emotion, then ask herself “what am I feeling and what’s the reason I am feeling it?”

She doesn’t take low or unattractive offers as a personal insult or indictment of her or her product.  She merely evaluates their financial worth and credibility and rejects or counter-offers them.  As Eleanor Roosevelt once said:

“No one can demean you without your consent.”

When someone tries to ply her with a feeling of guilt that she doesn’t deserve, she rejects it automatically knowing that she is worth more than that and has the sole responsibility of communicating what she is worth and why she is worth it.

A rational woman knows that benevolence is not altruism and need not become unmerited self-sacrifice – i.e., one can be generous in a negotiation or interaction on the condition that the other person is equally as benevolent, and not a moocher trying to obtain the unearned from someone with a weak sense of value.

There is no doubt about the self-value of a purposeful woman of reason, because her self-esteem is not faked.

When women fully realize and acknowledge the power of their minds, without reservations, roadblocks, fears or conditions, then they win – and so do those that they value.

Parts 2 and 3 … STAY TUNED!

Rob Flitton
www.robflitton.com

INCEPTION

“Dreams feel real when we’re in them … it’s only when we wake up that we realize something was actually strange.”

The focus and intense writing of the screenplay for INCEPTION must have been beyond belief.  It is a complex series of mazes and intricacies thought-through, edited and revised dozens upon dozens of times – it is said that Director Chris Nolan took ten years writing it.  And his incredible writing and directing skills in prior films is evident – Memento, The Prestige, The Dark Knight, Batman Begins.

But complexity alone does not make for a good or compelling movie.

What DOES make INCEPTION compelling and worthwhile, though, is the new ground it attempts to cover and integrate within the plot of the story.

Where do our ideas come from?

Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a thief with rare and extraordinary abilities.  He and his teammates can enter into the dreams of rich and important people and “extract” their subconscious secrets – and this skill in espionage is for sale.

Not only can private thoughts be stolen, but these same men can train potential victims on how to defend against such infiltration.  Such access can also create opportunities to leave behind Trojan Horses – for the victim to unwittingly provide such vulnerability as to allow “inception” – i.e., the theory of the infusion of new ideas or concepts.

And since Cobb’s back is up against the wall, and he needs one more score to right his life, businessman Saito (Ken Watanabe) offers him a chance to take his skills to a new level and find out if inception is truly possible.  Saito wants Cobb to infuse an idea into the subconscious of Fischer (Cillian Murphy) his business rival (a billionaire energy company heir) that will compel him to break up his newly acquired business empire.

The difficulty with inception is that it requires not only for Fischer to be merely dreaming, but there must also be two more levels of dreaming … inception requires a dream inside a dream inside a dream.  The reason is that in dreams, our perception of time is skewed.  Ten hours of real world sleep provides one full week in the first level of dreaming, and then grows somewhat exponentially.  In the second level of dreaming, those ten hours of sleep provide six months of perceived time, and in the third level they provide ten years.

Making the victims lapse into a dream and then accessing them requires a garden-variety type of swindle – one has to “tap into” them while they sleep unnoticed and then disappear afterward.  But for inception – the dream inside the dream inside the dream – there must be a full ten hours of chemical-induced dreaming.  The team craftily steals into Fischer’s subconscious on a long trans-Pacific flight.

The complex plot to infuse Fischer with a new idea – i.e., to make him come up with this idea on his own volition – requires “architecture.”  A young brilliant woman named Ariadne (Ellen Page) with a penchant for complex mazes is brought aboard.  Her task is to prevent Fischer’s subconscious from defending against this infusion by constructing mazes within the structure of the three dream levels – i.e., to buy the team time to carry out its mission.

It is implied that being able to escape into the non-reality of dream-world can make one somewhat insane.  In fact, a sub-plot about the death of Cobb’s wife Mal (Marion Cotillard), intertwines with the main thread of the story.  Together in their dream adventures, she loses the ability to distinguish between dreams and reality.  Ariadne has to deal with this element of Cobb’s subconscious in her architecture – an element that could not only destroy the plans, but leave the team of dreamers abandoned in an abyss of exponential decades of time.

Plot spoilers do NOT follow beyond this point.  In this film the probable predictability about the plot is not important.  The viewer is caught up in figuring out the complexity and just where everything stands at any given moment – at one moment I even chuckled wondering to myself “am I dreaming I am watching INCEPTION, or actually watching INCEPTION?”

The metaphysically given cannot be changed, but the man-made can be changed and ought to be changed as and when required – one must not have passive indifference as to where their ideas and concepts come from because the subconscious is highly impressionable and requires constant logical protection from the arbitrary.

This is where INCEPTION really delivers.  It identifies this key aspect of man, his ability and capacity to program his own subconscious.  While in the movie, “inception” is attempted as a form of business espionage, it is practiced throughout the world on very wide-awake and impressionable minds every second of every day because very few men understand that not only do the content of their ideas matter, but that this content is entirely under their own control.  And, to give up this prerogative and responsibility can spell literal disaster.

Men are taught all sorts of irrationalities that they accept on faith.  No form of “inception” can be carried out upon a man of reason – even when he dreams.

Rob Flitton
www.robflitton.com

12 ANGRY MEN

You have suddenly been given the power, weight and responsibility of deciding whether another man is to live or die.  You are a Juror.  The case is for capital murder, and if the defendant is found guilty he will be executed.

Or, you could look at it another way.  You are the defendant, but you have been falsely charged and now your life lies in the hands of other men – strangers whose moral standards and virtues you know nothing about.  After watching the brilliant movie “12 Angry Men” (1957), you will fervently hope that a man like “Juror #8” (played by Henry Fonda) sits on your jury.

When a committee decides any matter, it is problematic, let alone the life of a man.

In Ayn Rand’s powerful novel, The Fountainhead, the creative integrity of a great architect, Howard Roark, is constantly attacked and undermined by committees.  To a friend he explains:

That’s what stopped me whenever I faced a committee.  Men without ego.  Opinion without a rational process.  Motion without brakes or motor.  Power without responsibility.  The second-hander acts, but the source of his actions is scattered in every other living person.  It’s everywhere and nowhere and you can’t reason with him.  He’s not open to reason.  You can’t speak to him – he can’t hear.  You’re tried by an empty bench.  A blind mass running amuck, to crush you without sense or purpose ….

In “12 Angry Men”, a young unseen man is tried by a committee – a committee made up of mostly second-handers.  A second-hander is a man disinterested in facts – he’s only concerned with what other people think.  Instead of asking if a thing is true or untrue, he wonders whether or not others will think it is true or untrue, and then he formulates his views accordingly.  Justice disinterests him – he replaces it with consensus-building instead, and with a full range of personalities and backgrounds of the Jurors in “12 Angry Men”, the defendant’s chances seem slim.

Screenwriter Reginald Rose creates and builds the unique tension of his story using the method of having only one primary scene – a straight hour and a half within the Juror’s room.  The audience feels as though they are right there and, interestingly, most find their own views on the innocence or guilt of the defendant being swayed.

As most juries do, these 12 men take an initial vote.  They must have all 12 votes to either convict or acquit.  Shockingly, only Juror #8 votes for acquittal.  Without any deliberation over the evidence, 11 men were ready to send a young man to his death.

At first, the 11 men are certain.  They have an eye witness, a faulty alibi, an unusual knife used as the weapon – “a VERY unusual knife” one member taunts Juror #8 with as he thrusts it into the Juror’s table – “I say such a coincidence (that another man had such a knife and committed the crime) is not possible.”  Dramatically, the fate of the young defendant turns on a dime when Juror #8 pulls the identical switch-blade knife from his pocket and thrusts it into the table right beside the actual murder weapon.

The second-handers – who had relied on the feelings of people and not facts – soon begin to see all of their supposed evidence unravel.  They learn that the eye-witness indeed wasn’t wearing her prescription glasses the night of the murder, and that the faulty alibi isn’t so faulty.  Concern about letting a guilty man go free suddenly transforms into concern about imprisoning an innocent man.  One by one the personal prejudices of the jurors ebb away.

Juror #3 is a racist – he rants about “these people ….”, referring to the young man’s skin color.  Juror #7 is simply in a hurry and needs to get to a baseball game.  He votes “guilty” too soon – and then votes “not guilty” too soon.  The growing commitment to first-handed justice in the room motivated by the moral character of Juror #8 won’t let him get away with either.

And in the end, thanks to that stellar first-handed sense of justice of Juror #8, the young innocent defendant is freed.

There are many approaches to judging a man and his actions, but “12 Angry Men” displays a terrific example of the form of justice that Ayn Rand identified and advocated as a moral virtue: “that you must judge all men as conscientiously as you judge inanimate objects, with the same respect for the truth, with the same incorruptible vision, by as pure and as rational a process … “

One hopes that if he is ever judged by other men – especially for his life – that they hold the same incorruptible respect for the truth that this Jury eventually discovers.

Rob Flitton
www.robflitton.com

FOUR EASY WAYS TO MAKE YOUR NEGOTIATIONS LIGHT, FUN & PROFITABLE

For most people, negotiation is daunting – it represents fear, challenge, hostility, or some unknown skill that they haven’t mastered, and so they avoid bargaining altogether. These people are unnecessarily leaving money and profit on the table.

There are indeed times when a negotiation can be unfriendly – especially when someone is working to unfairly manipulate or leverage you. For these situations I recommend reading my recent book (www.negotiationforlifeandbusiness.com) which will teach you how to slay the manipulators.

However, here are some sure tactics to make a negotiation light and fun – and profitable!  And maybe even playful.

The Mirror

It is important to recognize that in almost any situation in life, other people are more than willing to mirror or reflect back to you the image, energy and attitude that you are projecting.

In my book, I talk about how a speaker at a workshop some years picked me out of the 500 attendees to demonstrate this.

We stood at a 45 degree angle to each other. She tightened her body, raised her fists to a boxer’s pose, and growled menacingly “be mad at me – honestly, you jerk, look right at me and become as angry as possible with me – put your fists up too – hate me!” To play along I worked my psychology into pretending that I literally hated her and she did the same – we both stood with fists raised, bodies tense and taut with anger, glaring.

Then slowly, and gently, she inclined her head and eyes, pouted her lips, and softly lowered her hands; she suddenly looked like a forlorn puppy. I couldn’t help it – her dramatic change in demeanor drained all of the anger and fight out of me. My hands dropped, I relaxed my shoulders, and moved my head back.

She grinned, triumphantly thrust her hands up, and announced to the crowd, “Mirroring.”

This woman, without my conscious awareness, had changed my mood entirely twice in less than a minute. You have the same ability to influence the mood of most settings and situations.

The Flinch

One of the inherent problems in keeping a light, fun attitude when haggling over price and terms is that there will be inevitable disagreement. The trick is to make the disagreement as benign and small as possible – and to never make it personal or sarcastic.

But, because there is indeed disagreement, it necessarily has to be put on the table.

Subtle flinching (heavy emphasis on “subtle”) often achieves communicating your disagreement without making the issue bigger than it has to be. Instead of saying “there’s no way I’m paying THAT price”, try saying nothing and just show your disagreement subtly through facial expression and body language. You’ll be amazed at how often you don’t have to say another word before the other party will improve his offer.

Even if you like the price or terms, still flinch anyway – it communicates in a nice way that you have no more give or room for the other party to explore. Here’s why you flinch:

A man goes to the optometrist’s office to buy glasses. While they’re on his face he asks “how much?” “Fifty dollars”, say the Optometrist. But when the man doesn’t flinch, the Optometrist says “for the frames.”

“Well then how much are the lenses?” asks the man. “Fifty dollars” says the Optometrist. But when the man doesn’t flinch, the Optometrist say, “each!”

Smile and Use Humor

Saying “no” does not have to be harsh, final, personal, sarcastic or given as an ultimatum – and when you avoid these things, you immensely increase your odds of turning a “no” into a “yes.”

Always start with a smile and warmth – when you begin with fists raised, you have nowhere to go but to blows.

Get The Other Side Talking

It is far better for you to say “how much do you want for it?” rather than “here’s what I will give you for it.” Even if they work this tactic back onto you, keep trying to spin it back on them.

Getting the other party to tell their expectations first is probably the single most important thing you can do in a negotiation. It gets them talking and makes them feel important and relaxed, but it also gets them to reveal their goals without you having to do so. When your goals are in concert, there need not be much disagreement and then the bargaining nibbles you decide to try can be viewed as fun and non-threatening.

I have made more money negotiating with this one single question than any other (whether in the boardroom or buying merchandise):

“Is that the lowest price you’ll take?”

Rob Flitton
www.robflitton.com
www.smartvegasrealestate.com

THE EINSTEIN & EDISON NEGOTIATING METHOD

The most significant mistake people make when negotiating is to fail to divide the processes of bargaining and decision-making.

When sitting down at the bargaining table, make a conscientious decision to avoid deciding.  Be an information gatherer – test the other side to discover both areas of agreement and areas of possible gain. When the other party wants to close the deal, this gives you a way of saying “well, now that I fully understand what you’re after, I need some time to think about it.” You will find the other side may even try to keep you from going away and thinking about it by sweetening their offer.

As a mental trick, think of yourself when bargaining as a “scientist” (like Einstein). What does a scientist do? Before he makes any decision about what to think he forms a hypothesis and then sets out to prove or disprove the hypothesis with a clean mind. The goal of the scientist is to DISCOVER WHAT THE FACTS ARE.

After all of the information is in – i.e., after you have established what the facts are, and the bottom line of the other side – you can then switch hats and begin thinking of yourself as an “engineer” (or inventor – like Edison). What does an engineer do? He TAKES FACTS AND INVENTS THINGS. The engineer creates solutions to problems. In a negotiation this permits him to take everything he has learned and present “what-if” strategies to the other side – “what if we were to …….”

“I am not a scientist. I measure everything I do by the size of the silver dollar. If it don’t come up to that standard then I know it’s no good.” – Thomas Edison

This strategy avoids conflict-type negotiation and almost always leads to one of three desired outcomes:

1)    A deal that is good for you;

2)    The ability to politely walk away and not make a deal;

3)    Encouraging the other side to explore something new by politely implying no deal will be made otherwise – it lets them save face by agreeing with you.

You can find these ideas and many others in my new book on negotiation: www.negotiationforlifeandbusiness.com.

Rob Flitton
www.robflitton.com

CAPITALIZING ON THE SHORT SALE BONANZA – FOR BUYERS

When Everyone is Planting Wheat … Grow Corn”

The last time that the purchase of real estate was such a good deal, FDR was giving fireside chats in the 1930’s – some 75 years ago. The big question for those wondering if they ought to enter the market right now (particularly as an investor) is “when & where?”

“Timing, timing, timing” in real estate is even more important that “location, location, location.” It is true that a typical Malibu beach home (i.e., it represents top-notch “location”) is worth more than a suburban home in Las Vegas, but right now the typical Las Vegas suburban home is a much better investment (i.e.,, it represents top-notch “timing”). If you were to learn that the Malibu homeowner was suffering a major financial crisis and needed to sell quickly, then that might add good timing to good location. But, leaving aside unusual factors, the Las Vegas market is the place for an investor to be looking to make a serious return.

“Want a Tip, Young Man?  Buy Low … Sell High!”

Of course, the ideal situation for any buyer is to buy at a major bargain and to sell at a major premium. In real estate, you can make money through two distinct strategies: (i) manufacturing – i.e., being a developer or builder and adding value and then reselling for more than the total invested costs, or (ii) speculation – i.e., merely buying something at a discount and selling it at a premium. Fresh off of a 25-year career as a land developer (and the development of some 10,000 housing units), and as someone who always preaches “manufacture, don’t speculate”, I would hate to be the guy signing my name to a pro-forma for a development or construction deal in these times – so here I am for the first time heartily encouraging investor speculation.

Why?

Speculative hold-and-flip investors in real estate need low prices and rental revenue – naturally, unreliable rental revenue lessens one’s return. In Las Vegas, the short sale has come to entirely dominate the market, so finding deals is easy. The question is – “can I reliably rent it out?” Yes. Right now we see the spectacle of thousands and thousands of sellers who did nothing wrong who suddenly need to sell their homes. They’re usually not flaky types, and up until now they likely paid their obligations dutifully. Once their house goes away in a short sale, though, they need to find somewhere to live as a renter – and their mindset for the tenant of an investor is ideal because they’re highly motivated to return to homeownership and are very mindful of restoring their credit reputation and score.

As a REALTOR ® who specializes in representing buyers, I see tremendous opportunity right now in Las Vegas – simply put, the “timing” is right.

My Real Estate website has plenty of information:  www.smartvegasrealestate.com

Rob Flitton
www.robflitton.com