Carol Cain Interview

Muaz Halees

As many of my closest friends can attest, I can be so persistent that it borders on annoying. But this time my annoying persistence led to a wonderfully informative interview with Carol Cain. I was honored that she decided to take some time out of her busy schedule to spend with The Method.

She has parlayed her position as editor of her third grade school newspaper into an illustrious journalism career, working at United Press International, The Detroit News, Detroit Free Press, and CBS. I read her insightful Detroit Free Press column religiously, and wholeheartedly recommend it to you (http://www.freep.com/section/COL24). She is also the Editorial and Community Affairs Director of Detroit’s two CBS owned stations, WWJTV and CW 50, (www.cbsdetroit.com).

She is the host and creator of Michigan Matters, a metro Detroit based television show that focuses on political, educational, and business issues concerning Detroit and the state of Michiagn as a whole. Show clips and poignant viewpoints from Carol Cain and her regular panelists can be found on the website (http://wwjtv.com/shows/detroit.shows.michigan.2.7080.html).

She received a 2009 National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences Michigan Chapter Emmy Award for her work on the WWJ-TV Eye on the Future series. The initial installment of the “Eye on the Future” series was “Building Bridges: From the Great Lakes to the Great Wall,” and should be required viewing for anyone remotely concerned with the Michigan economy and its future. The series can be seen in full at the website: http://wwjtv.com/buildingbridges

She has appeared on C-Span, CBS, NPR, and CNN; and we at The Method are extremely grateful that we had the opportunity to interview her.

The Method: I’m sure you’ve been asked this before, but why, as a journalist, did you choose to return to school (The University of Michigan Stephen M. Ross School of Business) and earn your MBA?

Carol Cain: Ironically when I started to get my MBA a lot of people were scratching their heads, as to why someone in journalism would want an MBA. At the time when I got it the economy was shifting dramatically and there were so many more business stories that I was starting to write about and edit and I didn’t have a full understanding which makes me uncomfortable. So the reason why, was so I knew more about the kinds of stories and things that were going on- the shifting economy. And even back then when I started it was obvious that the economy of Michigan was changing; and I couldn’t plan to be in one place forever so the MBA made me stand out going forward. But I believe it made me a better writer, a better editor, and a better manager. The University of Michigan has a wonderful MBA program and I am glad I did it.

TM: So it gave you a clearer view of the business world?

CC: Yes, an understanding of the business world as a whole and from the standpoint of writing and commentating on it as I do. I think it’s foolhardy to think once you’re done with your undergrad degree that that’s it you’ll never go back to school. I enjoy the process of learning I think that a good journalist is always into learning and evolving. It’s just part of an evolution and the MBA has helped me a great deal. U of M being a heavy quantitative program gave me exposure to a wide variety of contacts- to engineers and accountants –the kind of people that do not often work side by side with a journalist.

TM: The path a writer is on barely ever crosses into the quantitative, math based path.

CC: Michigan (The University) had a focused, group project mentality of doing things, and you realize no one person is good at everything, therefore you learn how to work better in a team. It’s like the real world you learn how to juggle and work with people towards making the end product, your project, whatever you’re working on better. It was a very helpful learning process. As we know working in the real world is a collaborative process, putting out a newspaper is a collaborative process, my TV show Michigan Matter is a collaborative process. It may be Michigan Matters with Carol Cain, but there are many more behind the scenes working together towards the goal.

TM: Detroit is a city whose economy was predicated on the entrepreneurial spirit- do you still see that spirit today?

CC: I see the entrepreneurial mindset being reborn in many ways. As we shift in this economy with the traditional auto manufacturing base dramatically changing and being affected by the economic tsunami, not just by globalization but by technology and the major economic woes and impacts of the credit market- people are realizing they can’t go work for a “GM” and expect them to take care of you forever. It has forced people to tap into what made this state so great a hundred years ago. I think the state in many areas lost touch of that spirit because things were going so well. The economy has gone bye-bye and it’s not going to come back in the broad based way – so where to go from here. The entrepreneurial mindset is coming back and will help save this state.

TM: How do you feel about the growing support for more open source funding initiatives?

CC: Anything we can do to help create more businesses is a good thing. Part of the challenge is that Michigan has not been on the forefront in the venture capital market. I think the challenge is how to get dollars to the hands of small businesses. But where there is a will there is a way, they have a tenacious spirit. What they (entrepreneurs) have and I don’t know if they are born with it or learn it, but they have this fearlessness about the challenge of finding capital, employees, someone to add support- but they charge ahead. An entrepreneur is a special type of person. I think we are going to see more of those people with the state of the economy being what it is.

TM: From what I’ve gathered many people on the outside view the business world as an old boys club- but I think a lot of those are external views- I think that the internal reality is that the business world- more than any other is a strict meritocracy- regardless of sex. But your piece on Mike Cox and the fact that he has zero women on his finance committee brought light to an issue I thought had passed. You have a unique vantage point of the business world, do you believe there higher hurdles for women than for men?

CC: Sexism, higher hurdles, I think the higher you go in the echelon of corporation the less women you see running the GMs or the Dominos- is there a reason for that along the way, is there a glass ceiling, are they finding other successes away from the traditional corporate structure- I don’t know. My article referenced The White House Project, which is geared towards getting more women involved in politics and policy making positions. The representative I talked to in the article believe that women aren’t necessarily raised to think politically which may be why none were available to be on his finance committee. Women have made many advancements and continue to make many inroads, but again there are still challenges ahead. But when we have a tough economy it makes things a lot more difficult for everyone. A lot of good things can come from tough times – 20 years from now we will be able to see what came out of all the things we are juggling today, as a state and as a country.

TM: So would you give different advice to a graduating female MBA than a male MBA?

CC: No in fact, when you look at success, you want someone who believes in what they’re doing and works hard. Many successful people don’t walk into it. They work harder, more diligently, and smarter; it’s not the 7 days a week 24 hrs a day worker; it’s thinking out the box, and finding a balance in your life. It is difficult for many driven people to not work 24/7. I do think that having an MBA is a very good thing. I never regret doing it and I would advice a young person going forward, starting out, to do it. To me it has given me something else that has made me a deeper journalist and a better manager.

TM: In your “Building Bridges: From the Great Lakes to the Great Wall” special you spoke about how Michigan’s economy can grow through Chinese partnerships. Why China?

CC: I had started writing a column about the entrepreneurial mindset in the Free Press, and I started getting all of this information from small business and business people setting up operations in China. We know that GM, Amway, and those types of large companies had operations in China, because of China’s population. But I was perplexed that small businesses with barely enough employees to set up in China were moving there. I read hundreds of articles about Michigan and China and there connections. At the time Michigan’s economic sector was already dwindling, so I came to a point that I had to go see it not just write about it. I have been over there 3 times. The CBS station I work with in Detroit decided to do it as part of its Eye on the Future series. So I went over there and talked to many people from Michigan residing over there and many people in China coming to Michigan to work. Why China, because I believe going forward this relationship is one of the things that will help save Michigan’s economy. They hold Michigan and the auto industry in such high regard; they know Henry Ford more than they know Bill Gates. We spoke with 3 governors, Rick Wagoner, the Chinese ambassador to the US, DeVos was in there; tons of people. The Chinese economy is still growing and building by leaps and bounds, and they are looking for things to buy and we have a lot of things available in this state, so I see the building bridges continuing and the opportunity for Michigan’s economy to grow in tandem with China’s.

TM: If we become too heavily invested in China do we not risk another global financial meltdown along the lines of the current one with all the other countries heavily vested in the US performance? Chinese lending continues to accelerate even though corporate profits as a whole are shrinking – there is a threat that they are incubating a financial crisis that may be triggered when the initial stimulus high wears off.

CC: China is already heavily invested in the US and vice versa. If the Chinese were to cut and run from all they were doing in this country our economy would falter in a major way. There is a lot of investment going on in both ways. There middle class is just coming into their own- spending wise. They are growing, Rick Wagoner (former GM CEO) said China was there number one market. A construction crane may as well be the national bird for all the growth, and expansion going on in China. They love, and I mean love US products. I tell people until you see it, you will never understand the opportunity available. Business is about looking for opportunities and I believe there will be more building of bridges between Michigan and China moving forward. But there is also India, Brazil, and Russia, more of those relationships will grow as we move forward.

TM: You wrote a piece about Doug Rothwell, president of Detroit Renaissance and he said -“You can be effective at advancing change without having to be a politician.” This was regarding the reestablishment of the Michigan Business Leadership Counsel. I may be cynical but I don’t believe it possible without being tied to politics, especially since the first counsel fell apart and all of these business leaders have significant political ties already and pronounced self interests, for legitimate change to occur on a national or global level.

CC: They are going to meet in September; many things are on the table, who knows what’ll come out of it. But I think the headliner is this – Michigan has tons of unique challenges beyond what the country faces. No one person is going to solve this; it’s going to be more of a collaborative sort of thing. If everyone stays in an “us versus them” mentality nothing will get done for either group. They will have to come up with a strategy different form the current one. Politics will have to come into play. But I think they are going to try and change the state’s tax policy, which many view as anti business. Whether you talk to Rothwell, DeVos, or Livernis; they are all trying to do things now to better position the state for the future.

TM: How far removed can these leaders get from the partisan disagreements to actually get something done?

CC: Regardless of party ties, we need creative ideas to get us moving in the right direction. And that is the goal of their meeting.

TM: Moving in the world of journalism now. With the way media and new media is developing- all fast paced and quick blog/twitter type of reporting are we losing good journalists? Do you believe we will ever see another Halberstam or Woodward and Bernstein or even another Hunter S. Thompson?

CC: The way information is being delivered is evolving. When I give speeches to universities I tell them not to get tied to the way news is being delivered. There will be new ways we can’t even comprehend today. I went to a conference in the mid 90s with every major US newspaper in attendance, and they were giving a lecture about the internet, and its effects on journalism. I looked around and all the faces were like “when is this over, this doesn’t affect us.” Now 15 years later it is dominating our lives. I think we will always have journalists, although the vehicle will continue to evolve. Whether it’s through print, online, or digital methods, they will persevere.

TM: Could Woodward and Bernstein receive the support in today’s climate to research and develop All the President’s Men over the time that they did?

CC: I think they will always have resources to do so. All media entities are challenged today. The big issue is that it is a money making operation- yes it furthers the freedom of speech, but its goal is to be profitable; and that is a challenge especially in this environment. Readership is up, people are reading more things, not necessarily just newspapers, maybe your book if it’s a best seller. But it’s all becoming so niche. So if you are only interested in sailing you will be able to get anything you want on sailing sent directly to you, whether that is print, online, or digital. Journalism has been around for so many years, and it will continue to be around in the future- it is too important, which is why our forefathers made free speech an amendment.

TM: People focus too much on breaking news- when groundbreaking news is what is remembered and fuels sales. Breaking news is overrated – accurate groundbreaking news is what we want. Newspapers can’t compete on speed, but they can compete and differentiate on quality. I fear that the two years it took to write All the President’s Men will not be available to today’s journalist. I am afraid that the attention to detail that newspapers have will be lost as they try to compete with blogs.

CC: Things change. Recently I looked at a paper from 70 years ago; there is nothing but text, and about 25 stories on this nut grass type of thing. The info that we are getting will be packaged differently. On a regular basis people may not want long stories. There will be a number of vehicles used to get news to people. From the 140 character twitter posts to a number of longer news options available. The industry has changed and will continue to change dramatically. I speak to many high schools and universities and my message to students looking to get into this field would be to get used to change because that is the name of the game going forward.

The Healing Process

If you’re real quiet you may be able to hear the Palin bedtime stories interspersing death panel myths with warnings of the boogie man. You may also be able to hear the health care lies emanating from Betsy McCaughey’s hollow thoughts. Not even Søren Kierkegaard could handle all this absurdity. We may need a separate health care bill just to deal with the apparent pathological liar epidemic. Let’s try and hit the mute button on all the health care lies.

Our country’s healthcare system will continue to fail because its opponents are savvy. They didn’t like what was being said so they changed the conversation. Our healthcare system will continue to fail because its proponents are lost. And Obama hasn’t been able to get us back on track. A political red herring and a multitude of ad hominem attacks have left this administration scrambling.

My audacity is intact, but my hope is fleeting.

Republicans claim that a private enterprise could never compete against a government-run enterprise. Out of the other side of their mouth they claim that all government-run enterprises are far too inefficient to work and would fail so catastrophically that we would never be able to recover.

Well, that’s quite a conundrum, isn’t it?

Private companies will fail when in direct competition with the more effective government. But the government runs everything so poorly that they are never effective.

What happens when two and two don’t equal four?

My sympathy goes out to politicians that have to deal with these problems while raising children in this mixed-up world. They will have had to choose between public and private schools, all the way from kindergarten to college. Upon completion how will those children ever mail resumes or grad school applications? Will they use FedEx, UPS, or the USPS? How will they ever decide? What if some of those children choose to defend this great country instead of working a nine-to-five? Do they go the private Blackwater route, or the public socialist U.S. military route? How they are both even in existence is a mystery? There is no way they could work in tandem. When their children decide to buy a home they will probably opt for the FHA loans that have made normal bank loans so inconsequential. Wait a second—they may not even need a loan, why pony up the extra coin for a home in a private gated community when they could opt for Section 8 housing—Martha’s Vineyard in New England or Martha’s neighbor in Bed-Stuy? And who will their children choose to represent them in court when they default on that loan, Gloria Allred or a court-appointed lawyer? I hope those children are prepared for this lack of clarity, this uncertainty, the impossibility of private and public enterprise to coexist.

Allow me to further illuminate that light-bulb flickering above your head. The red herring is a mutually exclusive argument. Each piece of that argument is based more on fears and lies than reality.

“If we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.” ~ South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint

The Republicans view the healthcare debate as a war against Obama, while Obama views it as a war against insufficient health care.

“The person who doesn’t scatter the morning dew will not comb gray hairs.” ~ Hunter S. Thompson

Let’s scatter the dew; let’s ignore the Republican attempt to maintain quo’s status. Let’s perform the will of the people and let Democracy guide. America voted to give the Democrats control of everything, so Democratic ideals are the people’s will. The hope of change got you in, gave you the opportunity to execute that change. You made promises and were elected because of our hopes, because of our desire for that very change. So far we have nothing. You are swimming against the swell of support you earned. You are not doing what you promised, what we entrusted you to do, what we hoped you would do.

The audacity of hope: yeah, now I get it.

The Audacity of Hops

When did the first wheel fall off the healthcare bus?

When a self-important Harvard Professor met a self-important Cambridge police officer.

I love talking and writing about race relations. I believe that the more we study the topic the more equipped we are at dealing with it. But this is not a topic of race. This is a topic of self-importance and arrogance. The Harvard prof views himself as too important, too revered to be treated like a common crook – when his actions said otherwise. The officer feels the same because he spends his days and nights protecting ungrateful citizens from common crooks. The officer is self-righteous and arrogant because his profession requires it for survival. The professor is self-righteous and arrogant because his profession requires it for advancement. It is not always an issue of race when a black man is arrested by a white officer. Crowley is not a racist. He gave dying Boston Celtic Reggie Lewis mouth-to-mouth when Lewis, who happened to be black, collapsed and died on a court in Boston. For Professor Gates to claim racial profiling as he was breaking into a million-dollar Cambridge home that he happened to own is careless and reeks of the same vanity that he claims Crowley was displaying. Black police officers stood with Crowley and white Harvard profs stood with Gates because this was not an issue of race. Indeed, this was barely an issue at all.

And, finally, the pièce de résistance: Barack Obama decides to fuel the fire by calling the entire Cambridge police force stupid. My head fell into my hands as I watched these stupid words escape his mouth. He was making an issue of a non-issue. A man breaks into a house and the police went over and above the call of duty. Leave it at that. It was nothing more than a series of unfortunate events. What’s worse is that now Gates’ community is the best neighborhood in America to burglarize; who in that neighborhood is going to call the cops now? Then, to add to the lunacy, Obama has both men over for a beer. Genius! Let’s add alcohol to an already volatile situation. As a country we watched and waited with feigned alacrity until the weird beer meeting ended.

While Obama’s actions were sophomoric, that’s not what really upset me. What upset me was that Obama’s normally accurate foresight was blinded by his desire to come to the aid of his buddy Gates. As he was selling the country on his new and very needed healthcare reform he decided to tackle this non-issue. He diverted attention from healthcare to race and beer. By transmogrifying the issue of healthcare into Crowley-Gates-gate he diminished and tarnished the health care issue. All the steam he had was now quelled, so much so that healthcare reform is now pushed to the next session of congress. We as a country have too much to fix and accomplish for you to personally deal with a tête-à-tête between your friend and a cop doing his job.

Bits of Tid

Lou Dobbs’s act has become tired. He is old and irrelevant. His tirades against Mexico and Mexican immigrants became so insidious that the CNN brass had to rein him in. He then moved to China (not literally, though that would have made me happy). He attacks and attacks, foaming at the mouth as the next hate-filled idea ferments in his head. He is what is wrong with the news media. We have the ideologues in Olbermann and O’Reilly, the extremists in Limbaugh and Maher, but what about the unbiased middle? Dobbs claims he is exactly that, except he spends 70% of his air time requesting Obama’s birth certificate. Obama has released his birth certificate, but not the long version that Dobbs is looking for. He believes that questioning Obama’s citizenship is the most important news story in the world, apparently.

Has he even watched CNN? Is he not aware of all the other more pressing and realistic issues going on? Dissect Obama’s views, his policies, his stance on abortion. Do something that is worthy of your position as journalistic arbiter. Some claim that our society has become jaded and disinterested in relevant news, which may certainly be valid, but even the most devoted news junkies would be turned off by the frivolous crap that our “news” organizations churn out. If Walter Cronkite was the embodiment of “journalistic integrity” and “unbiased reporting,” then Lou Dobbs is the diametric opposite, a roadblock diverting viewers from accessing any relevant insight into current events.

Using the nom de guerre Adam Tait, a 17-year-old autistic boy from Yorkshire, England convinced airline execs that he was a multimillionaire airline tycoon in his twenties with a fleet of jets and a team of associates. His shockingly accurate memory of every arrival and departure at all the major airports in the U.S. and U.K. gave credence to his claims. The 17-year-old not only played the part of Tait, but also fellow execs David Rich and Anita Dash; great fake names by the way. British aviation executives wanted to form a partnership with Tait geared towards servicing most of Europe with his low-cost/high-quality fleet of jets. Airliner World finally figured out the ruse and contacted police when the 17-year-old was looking over the 93-seater jet he was in the process of leasing. The police are not pressing charges and Tait’s real name is not being released. I am extremely pleased that he is not getting into any serious trouble, but I am hoping that somehow his incredible skills are harnessed for the greater good. He could take over for another conman like the U.S. car czar and actually help the dying industry. Better yet, he could become the Detroit Lion’s GM, tricking good players to move to Detroit. Or he could take over for Lou Dobbs on CNN. The possibilities are endless for this kid. He could accomplish so much more than the ephemeral success he earned with this prank, but he’ll probably just end up in an Oasis cover band regaling groupies with tales about the time he took over the airline industry.

Do we really need all the legal posturing that is for sure to come with Philip and Nancy Garrido trial? I am torn on the morality of the death penalty. A murderer sentenced to death is not the only murderer in that court room. It is easy to go on and on about the morality of the death penalty when you are so far removed from the subject matter that it appears blurry. That being said, I would completely support the death penalty if someone close to me were victimized. Admittedly, my stance has a hypocritical hue. However, there are some cases so horrific that no amount of separation could ever arouse compassion. There are some cases that should immediately supersede a state’s standing on the death penalty. Philip and Nancy Garrido shouldn’t be allowed to spend a night in jail. They should be put to rest before I can summon enough anger to write this 201-word paragraph. Who would be against this? I don’t want these people interviewed. I don’t want any television specials about their motives or their lives. I want justice for the victim and her family. I don’t think that is too much to ask.

Cash for Clunkers is a better version of the Bush rebate checks. The Bush checks were cut with the hope that people would spend them on goods and services leading to a stimulated economy. That stimulation would then raise consumer confidence in the market and the economic torpor we were stuck in would slowly disappear. The problem was that the checks were either saved by the recipients because of the lack of market confidence or spent to pay off existing debt. In other words, zero stimulation. The Cash for Clunkers program is the upgraded version of Bush’s rebate checks. It was a resounding success in Germany, and if we learned anything from Vince Offer (of ShamWow fame); it’s that the Germans are pretty innovative. People had the opportunity to cash in as much as $4,500 dollars towards a purchase of a new car. This money can only be used towards a good – a new car. This stimulus program picks up where Bush’s failed. The money is geared to stimulate the struggling automakers by providing financial incentives for new car purchasers and in turn improving the current state of the economy. Regardless of your position on government attempts to stimulate the economy, the juxtaposition of the Cash for Clunkers program and the tax rebates shows the hypocrisy of our government. Republicans that currently bemoan the program praised the Bush rebates, even though the only difference was the party affiliation of the head honcho. The Dems did the same thing, except in reverse. They support Obama’s plan but derided Bush’s. If we look behind the curtain a bit we can see that not many political officials actually officiate, they just politic.

Bashing Back

Muaz Halees

This is not the subject matter I usually write about. I am a writer that writes about random subjects at random times throughout the day. I write about my life and my opinions. I avoid throwing stones because my house has many windows, but I have a stone in my hand now. This article is not meant to be inflammatory, it is meant to highlight how baseless and divisive some of our leadership has become.

We are our brother’s keeper, whether that brother is gay, black, Cuban, man, woman, Arab, Christian, Jew, Mormon, or any other incarnation of the human spirit. I believe that a witness to a murder has blood on his hands by way of inaction; well, we are all witnesses now, and it is time to act. We have witnessed hate and vitriol spew from the mouth of a leader, the mouth of a woman whose job is to represent Oklahoma in the most positive and unifying manner possible. Because of Mrs. Kern, District 84 of Oklahoma is now known as a prejudice district that spits on the lives of individuals that have done no wrong.

E Pluribus Unum—out of many, one. District 84 is not one of us. That one that has hate in her heart and power in her hands. Hitler was elected and he mongered hatred without any castigation. It is our responsibility to come to the defense of our gay and lesbian siblings. Prejudice starts small and grows; if left untouched hate festers and contaminates; if left alone hate overtakes and kills. The weight that crushed the bigotry of Don Imus, Michael Richards, and Mel Gibson must come down on Kern. She is more than a celebrity, more than a radio host; she is a leader in these United States. She is a leader that must be dethroned and reprimanded. As a writer I am a proponent of free speech and free thought, but as Oliver Wendell Holmes stated, “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.” Sally Kern has just punched all of us in the nose. Do we have the bravery to react, the bravery to stand up for what is right?

Representative Sally Kern’s words will not be forgotten and must not be forgiven:

“I honestly think it’s the biggest threat our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam.”

I don’t recall a group of crazed homosexuals hijacking planes on September 11. I don’t recall a group of homosexuals blowing up the Oklahoma City federal building and ending 168 lives. The thinly veiled hatred against Islam is not unnoticed, either, Mrs. Kern. Hatred propagates hatred.

“Studies show, no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted for more than, you know, a few decades” -Sally Kern

Really, Mrs. Kern, really… Hitler had the same proclamation regarding Jews, and the KKK used this same rhetoric regarding African-Americans. Men used the same hate speech trying to quell the suffrage movement. Hatred had to be overcome for Mrs. Kern to become a State Rep. As you rise you must pull up, not step on the throats of your fellow citizens.

“It’s, it’s, it’s not a lifestyle that is good for this nation” -Sally Kern

Hatred is not a lifestyle that is good for this nation.

“And this, this stuff is deadly, and it’s spreading and it will destroy our young people, it will destroy this nation” -Sally Kern

Hatred destroys nations. Homosexuality is deadly? Mrs. Kern, you are such a misguided and damaged individual that I have no words that will accurately convey my feelings of frustration over these malicious statements.

Mrs. Kern uses the Bible as a defense of her hatred, to proselytize her malice. Okay, that is fine, Mrs. Kern, but Hitler followed the same tactic.

“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: ‘by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.’” -Adolf Hitler

We have a responsibility to stand united. This is not a political issue. This is not a Republican or Democratic issue. This is a humanitarian issue. We must remember the name and face of Matthew Shepard. We must remember the name and face of Emmett Till. We must remember the name and face of Anne Frank. We must remember that these three lives and countless others were lost because of hate, a hate that started out with words and became action. We must remember that backing down to hatred leads to loss of freedom, liberty, life.

Representative Kern has the right to believe and say anything she wants, just as I do to lament her actions. But she does not have the right to propagate her hatred while employed by the citizens of this country to carry out their best interests. We must speak up; we must write and make our voices heard. We must make sure that the GLBT community knows they are not alone in their struggle. If we don’t, we may be the next targets of Mrs. Kern. I urge you to write to Mrs. Kern, in a peaceful manner. Inform her that her words hurt, that her words are untrue, that her hate has not gone unnoticed, and that these wounds will not heal through time.

I am not gay. I am a straight man that understands his responsibility to come to the aid of his fellow man or woman, regardless of race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation. I am a promoter of unity, freedom, and equality. I am an American that understands what America stands for. I am an American that understands that Mrs. Kern does not represent me, or the America I love.

Representative Sally Kern’s contact information as reported on the OK State House Website:
(405) 557-7348
sallykern@okhouse.gov
2713 Sterling Ave., Oklahoma City, OK 73127

Interview Series – Glenn Haege

Muaz Halees

Glenn Haege is the popular and larger-than-life host of the eponymous “Handyman Show with Glenn Haege.” Since 1983 Glenn has been delivering his unique take on how-to advice for homeowners. His advice and the sincerity in which he delivers it have fueled his impressive growth, which is why he is now carried by over 170 affiliates nationwide. He has been named one of the nation’s most important radio talk show hosts by Talker’s Magazine. His credentials are too many to list here, but he has penned a number of best-selling home improvement books and has been a recipient of numerous awards for his broadcasting excellence. More impressive is that he is now referred to as “America’s Handyman,” an accolade that he is much more proud of. Glenn Haege has a refined style of leadership and we wanted to pick his brain about the leadership issues he faces on a daily basis. We were honored that he chose to spend a little time with The Method for an interview.

The Method- When evaluating leadership qualities, what characteristics do you feel make a great leader?

Glenn Haege- The ability to listen—and not the passive listening most people do, but actually engaged, active listening. A leader must be a keen observer and must be able to empower everyone through his actions. Then there are the obvious traits that allow a leader to reach leadership positions. A great leader must be goal-oriented with an eye on project completion. But I am a believer that a leader is born a leader; that is not a teachable skill set. I had a boss a long time ago while I was with Sherwin William, Mr. Jerry Grass, who empowered me through his leadership. His patience and soft skills were my greatest motivators at the time.

TM- Is it more difficult to lead during tumultuous times or successful times?

GH- Successful times. Success breeds complacency. People use success as a mental compromise. On the subject of good leaders, not much credit is given to those that maintain success; it is sometimes harder to maintain success than to take something that has not been working and make it a success.

TM- What professional sacrifices must be made to become a successful leader?

GH- Time and how you prioritize it. For example, my personal time is of very low importance, it is low priority. The priority is being available for others in your team and giving them total commitment, and that is the sacrifice. As a leader you have to be the most flexible, and that will motivate others to proceed the same way.

TM- For others to follow, doesn’t the environment have to be motivating? You can be as devoted and as flexible as possible, but the environment is the key. How do you create a motivating environment?

GH- By choosing people who want to be motivated. It’s like planting corn; you don’t just throw seeds onto the ground and hope. All the factors must be right: the soil, the weather, the seeds, everything. And then you plant. I’ve always sought out those who want to work, not those who have to work.

TM- If motivation or performance slips, how do you govern the feedback process?

GH- Visual support. Through experiences. Three to four times a year I have my employees trade or rotate potions to get some insight into how others work, and how their actual position is viewed from another perspective. Then as it relates to annual performance review, I have them fill it out first, and then as a team we discuss it. We tailor our performance evaluations to the person and the job; too many companies have one form for each job, and that makes no sense. Each person and position is unique and should be evaluated as such.

TM- What piece of advice would you give to young graduates entering the work force?

GH- Treat people with a balance of information. Gain a comprehensive, thorough understanding of your organization. Ask a lot of questions about the company as a whole, as well are your specific role. And find someone successful and learn form them; you can gain a lot of skills and important lessons from successful people.

Book Review: ‘Myth of the Rational Market’ by Justin Fox

Muaz Halees

Roger Lowenstein has recently declared that “the upside of the current Great Recession is that it could drive a stake through the heart of the academic nostrum known as the efficient-market hypothesis (EMH).”

Is this true? Who knows.

The efficient market hypothesis has become the “mark-to-market” of opponents to stock market regulators. Just as accountants claim that the mark-to-market rule has been the cause of undervalued assets, Justin Fox and his brethren have claimed that the EMH have caused the current recession

Justin Fox writes The Curious Capitalist column for Time Magazine, which, surprisingly, is not about a sexually confused economist. His columns are very detailed, educational, and grounded in economic theory. It comes as no surprise that his book reads like an extended column—which is both praise and condemnation.

He imparts two very clear lessons—both of which are so simplistic that calling them lessons may well be offensive to schools. His first claim is that “the markets are smarter than you are” and his second is that “the majority of fund managers fail to accurately judge the market and actually reduce the chance of an investor to turn a profit.” Some of his claims that didn’t make it into the book were that grass is green, that the sun is hot. Groundbreaking stuff, I know.
Fox begins his extended column with the story of economist Irving Fischer in 1929. He then ties the stories and stances of old-world economists to those of their contemporaries. He also develops his second hypothesis by highlighting the numerous economists over the years that made similar claims.

Fox builds his book around the inception and maturation of EMH. He takes the reader from its position as hypothesis, to its position as fact, to what he claims it should be—myth. His easy-to-read and at times intolerably bland account of the rise and fall of the EMH ends in a profound and powerful assertion: How can a theory that asserts all market prices and movements are unknowable in the present be used to determine the market’s present day prices and movements?
Fox’s book comes off as an attempt to pin the blame of the market’s recent crash to any number of factors. His claims that asset beta may be fraudulent and evil, economists knowingly gifted the public with flawed theories, and that the capital asset pricing model is increasingly irrelevant all lead to his contemptuous treatment of the efficient market hypothesis. While his words should not be taken as gospel, his book should make it into the library of anyone concerned with the machinations of the market.

One question that I was left with (which may bother you as well) is how can rationality ever be used in tandem with something as inherently irrational as the market?

Interview Series: Part 1

Jordan Summers & Muaz Halees

Lindsay Aspegren’s career has taken him from Goldman, Sachs & Co. to an M.B.A. from the Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration, to co-founding North Coast Technology Investors.  His illustrious background affords him a unique perspective on the issues entrepreneurs face in today’s volatile economy. Ever since he graduated with distinction from Yale with a B.A. in History, Lindsay has been heavily involved in the world of entrepreneurs. 

We were lucky enough to get a few minutes with Lindsay Aspegren, to gather some of his thoughts on entrepreneurship, career paths, and the current state of the economy:

 

The Method:                There has been a movement claiming that the bailouts, intended to save huge businesses, would be better served as investments into small business with big potential.  Where do you stand on this issue? 

Lindsay Aspegren:       My general belief is that small businesses can compete and compete well in all of the programs that have this “peer reviewed, grant process” associated with them.  Both big and small can co-exist and gain assistance from the stimulus package. 

TM:                              Don’t you feel that the thresholds small businesses’ must meet to gain stimulus help are much higher than those for large corporations? 

LA:                              In general they represent the product of political compromise and a theoretical idea in someone’s head, not the market’s needs.  But there are numerous government programs available to a company like Dow that a small company cannot participate in, and vice versa, there are programs that Dow cannot participate in that small companies have access to. 

TM:                              What types of opportunities would you pursue if you were starting over today? 

LA:                              If you were talking to me as an entrepreneur I would say molecular diagnostics.  Diagnostics based on gene identification and personalized health; they offer limitless opportunities.  That is the new game, because right now we are seeing the triumph of economics over finance, which is almost the exact opposite of the last twenty years.

TM:                              How does the triumph of economics over finance affect Wall Street?

LA:                              The Wall Street game will come back.  They will find a new way to re-invent themselves. 

TM:                              Isn’t this fascination with decreasing risk in the market, actually serving to create a de-motivating environment for investors.  Isn’t the risk what drives investment, otherwise we would all throw money into a CD.

LA:                              The classic issue with all regulation is that they’re trying to correct past mistakes that our now fully in evidence and now people make different mistakes. 

TM:                              Being on the front line in the late 1980s with Goldman, Sachs; how surprised are you with the current state of the banking sector.

LA:                              Well I was never in fixed income or mortgage backed securities, I was in the equity side.  I used to work with Hank Paulson while I was at Goldman, Sachs; I’ve been on a number of deal teams with him, I was an analyst, and even then he was quite a force of nature.  But the creation of derivate financial instruments just started while I was there, so things like interest rate swaps which had very legitimate uses were just being baked into the financial products sold at Goldman.  But what’s happened since is the decoupling of those swaps; now the swappers don’t know each other.  All of a sudden you lose track of who you’re dealing with, and the thing basically gets sliced up into many parts, and when one little piece pulls, there is a huge problem.  It becomes highly, highly, leveraged and it’s hard to find out who’s accountable to whom.  It only takes one small hit and everything starts to go away. 

TM:                              What beliefs did you hold in the beginning of your career that has changed?

LA:                              What someone told me once is when you look at your career in the beginning its difficult to see where you’ll end up, but in retrospect, when I look at my career and where I’ve been it makes perfect sense. The challenge is to look two steps ahead, the job I take today is great but what’s the next job, what am I shooting for.  Pinning those points together is a valuable thing particularly for guys like you or people reading this article because eventually it will all fit together

TM:                              So you don’t judge the job on its merits you judge it on how it fits into your life plan?

LA:                              Of course I do, that’s part of its merit.  When you look back your initial job will have this random characteristic, like “I never thought I’d work for a rental company,” but four years later you’re working in leasing and in ten years you’re in a specialty finance company and you’ll understand all the attributes of big leasing programs because of the three steps made in between. 

TM:                              What is the most overrated characteristic or skill for an entrepreneur that you’ve observed?

LA:                              I would say, the administrative skill set a typical MBA has, I don’t think it matters, I have an MBA, and you have MBAs, but as a predictor of entrepreneurial success it means nothing.  What is administration?  Why would you want to be a master at it?  Why do they call it a school; if you really wanted to go start a business go get passionate about something and learn it really well. 

TM:                              So you’d say the best prep course for our careers would be our experiences much more than our academics?

LA:                              I think that your career experiences are what matter, that’s your destiny, the tool kit is generic, and applicable to a number of fields.  Experience and the specialization that goes with success in a field is what make entrepreneurs.

Marijuana: The Real Stimulus Package

Muaz Halees

We need to legalize marijuana. I’ll wait for all the supporters and detractors to rid themselves of superfluous comments.

(Waiting.)

(Waiting.)

(Waiting.)

Now that we’re all ready to have an intelligent conversation about marijuana, I would like to continue. Legalization will improve a number of health, social, and economic issues we currently face as a society.

Let’s start with the numbers compiled by Harvard Professor Jeffrey A. Miron.  He asserts that “$7.7 billion per year in state and federal expenditures on prohibition enforcement would be saved and if it were taxed similarly to alcohol or tobacco, it would generate as much as $6.2 billion annually.”  You should probably re-read that last sentence to accurately grasp the potential profits available if legalization is realized.  This study does not account for the potential profit windfalls realized if the government serves as the sole proprietor of the marijuana industry, which would put the profits in excess of $30 billion dollars. 

Legalization would create two distinct revenue streams.  The companies that sell marijuana would have to pay income taxes and all sales of the drug would also be taxed.  The taxpayer money that is spent senselessly prosecuting marijuana offenders could be spent in a number of more efficient ways, or returned to the taxpayers.  The budget for drug enforcement may not have to be so large or could be re-focused on preventing far more dangerous sorts of drug abuse.  The jail space wasted on marijuana offenders could be better utilized to house real criminals. 

The war on drugs is a failure of nearly biblical proportions.  I am not employing hyperbole; in fact, I am actually understating the miserable results of this ill-fated war.  The only way to mitigate the losses incurred is by legalizing marijuana.  Prohibition has not prohibited anyone from acquiring marijuana, as evidenced by the 85% of high school seniors that admit to its use.  I don’t understand why we give credence to third party detractors on this issue while we routinely dismiss their moral and ethical arguments regarding the sale of cigarettes, alcohol, birth control, fur, caged chickens, or any number of other issues they decry. 

Opponents to legalization claim that its use causes crimes. This is a lie.  There is correlation between the two, but not causation.  Their argument is tantamount to claiming that abortions cause global warming.  Our prohibition of marijuana may actually be fueling the crimes associated with it.  Violence is used to resolve marijuana disputes because that is the only avenue available.  These violent methods were employed during the underground casino age and during alcohol prohibition.  The violence associated with these two industries decreased systematically after both industries were partially or completely legalized. 

Legalization of the drug would remove the pejorative connotation associated with it.  Scientists and doctors could research its health benefits without fear of castigation.  There may be more money allotted to researching those potential benefits.  Its legalization may also force parents to engage in serious, poignant conversations with their children on the topic of drug use.

The debate should take place, and the supporters of legalization should not be grouped into the same category as the potheads working at the local 7-11.  We are made up of a wide range of individuals, but most noteworthy are those in the economic field that support its legalization, such as Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman and a number of other economic visionaries. They signed a petition in 2005 extolling the financial virtues of marijuana legalization, so don’t be so quick to dismiss this argument. The arguments against legalization have always been stale and baseless; this economic downturn, however, may provide the motivation needed to overturn a failed referendum.

Book Review: The Wordy Shipmates by Sarah Vowell

Muaz Halees

Sarah Vowell is the girl you crushed on in high school, even though you were embarrassed because she was emo and nerdy.   She grew up to be a writer and now she is funnier, smarter, and more relevant than you.  But you can still connect to her through The Wordy Shipmates.  In her fifth book she has masterfully married sarcasm, pop culture, twitter tics, poignant one-liners, and the Massachusetts Bay Colony. 

Her pedantic attention to detail can be appreciated by even the most ardent, popped-collar wearing, Bud Light-drinking frat boy.  She is a high-browed historian, except her high brow is pierced.  The only nauseatingly pompous part of the book is her acknowledgments section, which is a master’s class in name dropping.  But alas, if the Puritans have downfalls, then so can she.   

She skips the more famous Pilgrims and focuses on their less noteworthy counterparts, the Puritans–along with their establishment of the Massachusetts Bay Colony.  The religious texts are keenly broken down by Vowell, who is a renowned atheist.  The Puritan religious message is praised and used to highlight the lowlights in the religious message of today’s holier-than-thou pontificators.  Vowell claims that the classic teachings of Puritan John Winthrop comforted her following Sept. 11^th and served as her inspiration for The Wordy Shipmates. 

The book begins with the departure of hundreds of English colonists and the difficulties faced as they establish the aforementioned Massachusetts Bay Colony.  She highlights the pains they went through dealing with the scarcity of food, shelter, and safety.  The Wordy Shipmates analyzes the lives of New Englanders during the tumultuous 1630s.

This book was my vessel, for one week, to escape the torpor and monotony of my daily grind.  She portrays the Puritans as they were: mirror images of us.  They were more than the cold, devout, dour individuals we perceive them to be.  They had conflicts between spirituality and society; they were intelligent, courageous, and awkward. 

There is an important story of America professionally placed within Vowell’s sardonic prose.  The Puritans left England to battle the brutal conditions of the new world.  They held onto England while forging ahead with their goals.  There are so many lessons in this book for us.  In a few short months we will face the hardships of a new world and we must stay the course and brave the treacherous conditions.  The Wordy Shipmates may provide some insight into ourselves while imploring us to laugh at the comedy of the human condition.