Last week I asked you to define three things: Something you want to stop doing; something you want to start doing - or do more of; and a longer term goal that you want to reach. Today I want to give you the beginning of a training regimen that will strengthen your ability to achieve those three things (also largely courtesy of Kelly McGonigal from her book, The Willpower Instinct). Whenever you strengthen your capacity for willpower in a specific way, you strengthen your capacity for willpower in general. Since there are three different applications of willpower, reflected in three different parts of your brain, let's practice strengthening each of these.

If there is one thing government bullies like Barack Hussein Obama and his accomplices in Congress do not understand is that, in Adam Smith's phrase, the "invisible hand" of self-interest is what makes the world work, not them. A perfect example is their fascist power grab called FATCA, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act.  The cost of compliance and associated risks of FATCA are so high for foreign financial institutions that it will result in the United States losing hundreds of billions in foreign investment and millions of attendant jobs. For three decades, a thorn in the side of the big-government bullies like today's FATCA fascists has been a remarkable woman, former U.S. Ambassador to Switzerland Faith Ryan Whittlesey.  You should know about her.

In the final presidential debate last night (10/22), Mitt Romney made me think of Nathanael Greene (1742-1786). Most historians think Greene was, after George Washington, the best American general in the Revolution (if you don't count Benedict Arnold, who was the best on either side, and -- of course -- on both sides). Greene won despite losing every battle he fought.  He won by focusing relentlessly on his strategic objectives. Most pundits say President Barack Hussein Obama won last night's debate.  But his victory was Pyrrhic.  Like Greene, Romney understands that it's not winning a particular battle that counts -- it's winning the war.

"It's over."  When hyper-partisan Democrat operative Bob Beckel throws in the towel, as he did last night on Fox, you know it really may be for Zero.  In fact, you might mark down on your calendar that last night, October 18, is when the Zero Presidency died, as it suffered what looks to be an unrecoverable triple whammy. First was Beckel's verdict in response to the latest Gallup poll (10/17) showing Romney with a virtually insurmountable lead of 52%-45% over Zero. Second was the greatest gaffe Zero has ever uttered, timed less than three weeks before the election.  Last night on Jon Stewart's Comedy Central show (yes, a comedy show), he actually said, in response to Stewart's questioning his handling of the Benghazi scandal: "If four Americans get killed, it's not optimal."  Tim Stanley of the London Telegraph thinks he's channeling Michael Dukakis. Third was Romney's hilarious gutting of Zero at the Al Smith Dinner last night, the ultimate elite white-tie event for Catholic charities held annually at the Waldorf-Astoria.  Example: now as Mr. Obama is in "the last few months of his presidency," he must be thinking:  "So little time, so much to redistribute." Or how about this: "Campaigns are hard, and I and the President are each very lucky to have one person who's always in our corner, someone who we can lean on, someone who's a comforting presence without whom we wouldn't be able to go another day. I have my beautiful wife, Ann. He has Bill Clinton."  Enjoy the whole monologue, and note how it was a huge hit with the New York audience:

(Note: next week's Teleclass will be closed on Sunday this weekend, sign up now to hold your spot) Sometimes we can have a sense that things aren't working well, or we'd like something to be different in our lives, and we can try to take steps to change.  But without an idea of what isn't working well, what we'd like to have different, or what we would like to change, we can end up wandering aimlessly through life. That's what I'd like to help you to avoid today. There are three questions that I'd like you to consider :

I thought Mitt Romney was splendid last night.  Not perfect, of course.  There's a consensus among conservative commentators that he flubbed an opportunity on Libya.  He did ramble some, but I think it was "moderator" Candy Crowley's intervention that kept him from landing a more solid blow. Otherwise, Romney rumbled.  He was confident, knowledgeable, likeable.  He was assertive without being aggressive.  Both in what he said and in body language, he was more presidential than Zero.  This is why I don't buy the near consensus among the punditocracy that this debate was a draw.  Obama was much better than he was in Denver, but he was still the lesser man on the stage.  He was aggressive where Romney was assertive; he filibustered where Romney was direct and concise; he was nakedly partisan, and he shrank back in the moments when Romney asserted alpha male status. The alpha male highlight was Romney shutting Zero down when Zero tried to interrupt him:  "You'll get your chance in a moment. I'm still speaking."  Zero shrank right on camera and slunk back to his stool.  Here's the video clip:

If you were unemployed, would you prefer a job or a handout? Most people would say a job because of the self-respect that comes with being productively employed. What is not widely recognized is both the emotional and physical damage long-term unemployment does to many people. Over the past several decades, there have been many studies about the effects of long-term unemployment on individuals. If you do a Google search of such studies, you will find a remarkable consensus among the researchers -- even though some are funded by government, some by labor groups and some by employer groups. In sum, all agree that death rates increase markedly for those who lose their jobs. The unemployed, not surprisingly, are much more prone to develop stress-induced conditions such as diabetes and depression. Not being able to find work is stressful, particularly for those with family responsibilities. It is interesting that even though nearly all agree that involuntary unemployment is harmful to the individual and society, many policymakers are willing to accept it rather than focus on what can be done to prevent it.  President Obama certainly seems to be among them.