This video of Ms. Henrietta Hughes’ question to President Obama breaks my heart. It absolutely breaks my heart.  Here I am, complaining…..when there are individuals like her that are homeless, have nowhere to sleep or bathe.  

This video puts things into perspective.

There are naysayers out there claiming that this was staghed.  One cnn.com commentor said:

“How does a 61-year-old homeless woman who’s living in a pickup truck with her son JUST HAPPEN to get a ticket so she can VERY PUBLICALLY ask Prez. Obama for a HOUSE? Anyone? Who pushes her up on stage? She’s right at the front of the crowd. Did she just happen to get a seat there?” asked reader Erik E.

This recession HAS led to an increase in unemployment and HAS resulted in more homelessness. This woman must be desperate. I think it’s highly plausible that she waited in line, pushed her way to the front of the stage, and made sure she had a chance to ask her question.

Have a little compassion because it’s sad to see some of you be so cynical.

Something that I love about the United States is its ability to nation build.  It’s amazing how a country this large, this heterogenous, and this new can find enough common ground to create one national identity.

The recent plane crash in the Hudson river is a perfect example. Through the easily accessible medium that is the internet, hundreds of millions of Americans viewed the crash pictures, videos and testimonial.  For many, the pictures of the crash awakened memories of 9/11. This was a positive juxtaposition to that tragedy. We like happy endings.

The most potent effect of the crash so far is the honor this one nation bestowed on this one individual:  Captain Chesley Sullenberger .

The entire cnn.com front page focused on him most of yesterday. Now, there are facebook groups dedicated to him, tv shows clamoring to interview him, etc. 

This one heroic event has created a national memory that we can all stand behind, reminding us that we are part of a nation where miracle stories like this can happen.

We need to understand the status-quo and identify problems in our society before anyone can determine what/how things will change should Obama be elected.

• Economy
• Threat of terrorism—by extension, the war in Iraq
• Racism and inequality
• ?
• ?
• ?
• There are probably millions of problems, with thousands of subproblems.

We need to understand the nature of each problem. Does racism lead to inequality? Does inequality dampen the economy? Does a  war in Iraq inhibit or promote acts of terrorism in the United States? Does an act of terrorism have the ability to crush the US Economy

We need to rank these items and figure out their hierarchy. Do most people prefer to fix the economy or fix the war in Iraq? Fix the economy or alleviate inequality?

It’s tough. It’s almost too tough to do even though I’m sure there are think tanks all around the country that exist for the sole purpose of identifying and then solving problems. I have some ideas too…but I need to think them through.

In a nutshell, I think that Obama is not your typical candidate. I think that he has a unique perspective by virtue of his background.  I think that this unique perspective will shock the political status-quo and present the United States with a once in a life time chance (chance…this is probability so that means that results are not guaranteed) to change the greater good, change the status quo.

History has taught us that the top of the status quo usually fears change. History has also shown us that, more often than not,  change is good for society.

I want to define what needs to be changed and then figure out if Obama is in a position to produce that change. Posts to follow.

You have got to check out this Business Week article “Meet your New Recruits—They Want to Eat Your Lunch” written by Aili McConnon and Jessica Silver-Greenberg. The article describes these elite investment clubs at top tier undergraduate universities, such as Harvard (no surprise), Yale (a little surprising) and Tufts University.

Undergrads compete to get into these extracurricular clubs because it gives them a chance to invest money in a group setting, a mini Hedge fund of $30k or so. I see the merits of working in these clubs:

• Investment exposure: How to identify and research an idea
• Investment management: How to manage existing assets, exit bad investments, etc
• Teamwork and consensus building: How to convince a group of people that investment XYZ is a good idea
• Leadership: This applies to club officers, who can demonstrate to future employers that they are natural leaders
• Resume: It looks good…I’ll admit it.

However, as a liberal arts major myself with a decent career to date, I have to agree with the three executives interviewed that disagreed with the value add of these investment clubs.

• Michael J. Mauboussin, Chief Investment Strategist for Legg Mason Capital Management—”If you are specialized too early, there is a risk you will be less innovative because you have fewer building blocks to combine in new ways.”
• Carly Fiorina, Former CEO of Hewlett-Packard—Majored in Medieval History and Philosophy at Stanford.

Undergraduates grossly overestimate the intellectual rigor required to work in investment banking or consulting. That is, you definitely have to be smart to do well on the job, but only because you have to learn quickly on the job. You are not expected to know how to value a company, you will learn on the job. You are not expected to perform in depth competitive research from day one, again, you will learn on the job. Any knowledge on these matters that you have walking in the door will serve as nothing more than a 3 month lead on other analysts that start learning on the job. So, the real value add coming out of college is a different perspective, a fresh look at things, an innovative approach…outside of the typical moves a banker or consultant may pull.

My career is nothing impressive. I have not made a lot of money nor have I been promoted in any unusual ways. However, I have played a key role in several billion dollar investments—not M&A “should we fund this deal” stuff, but real investments like when a company decides to penetrate (or avoid) a new market and absolutely revolutionize the field as a result. The sort of work that is priceless in experience, despite a mediocre salary.

I was given a role in these projects not because I studied real estate finance in college, but because I bring a really unique perspective to my surroundings. The research skills I grew interning at a magazine one summer, logical thinking strengthened the summer I spent screening calls/mails for a Civil Rights Group for potential new cases, and leadership skills gained from running a student organization have been INFINITELY more useful than anything I learned in college. My most innovative ideas applied at work are a result of cool conversations with friends from all different backgrounds. With that said, the big picture thinking that became second nature as I wrote my history, literature, and econ papers has been useful…These skills are the ones that allowed me to have more impact than my peers from day 1.

I can imagine these kids at work…the kids who look up with eager eyes and wait for a lollipop just because they finished their valuation model 60 minutes before the other equally smart kid that made a model for the first time. You don’t get a lollipop in banking or consulting, and there are way more job openings than people like to admit so you can bet that the other student who is driven (in other ways) and accomplished (in other ways) will likely get an offer from Goldman/CS/JPM or whatever too.

I commend the iniative these kids take, the dedication, the hard work they pull on top of their homework. I respect that…but there are other ways to “be impressive” without starting your job before graduating from college. See, work isn’t that fun so they might as well maximize their time at school and spend their time building something outside of the 9-5 (9-2am banking hours) field of vision. It will add more value later on because the students who take the “creative” path invested in something that no one will be able to match unless they participated in that activity during college. Now, that is a competitive advantage.

I just finished reading this month’s issue of Elle Magazine, which must have been written during the peak of the Elliot Spitzer scandal because 85% of the articles were about infidelity, infidelity in politics, and divorce laws.

One particular article got me thinking. It gives what may well be a one-sided version of one couple’s very acrimonious divorce in the State of New York. See, and I didn’t know this, New York is one of three states that does not allow no-fault divorces. If a divorce is not mutual in these state then the partner that wants out must prove to a judge that one of four things happened:

Are there grounds [for divorce]?” He then listed the four legally sanctioned grounds in New York, one of only three states that do not confer unilateral or one-party divorce (the others are Mississippi and Tennessee) and the only state that doesn’t provide a “no-fault” ground (i.e., irreconcilable differences). Rather, one must be able to prove one’s spouse guilty either of “cruel and inhuman” treatment, adultery, abandonment for one year, or having spent at least three years in prison. The only exception is if a couple mutually consents to the divorce and all financial and custody terms, which in acrimonious, contested situations—about one fourth of cases—just does not happen.

The article paints a grim and probably common picture. Girl meets boy. Girl gives career up to raise a family while the boy’s career flourishes. Both work long hours, one at home the other in an office. Girl asks boy to help out with daily chores. Boy gets mad; “I don’t ask you to help out with my financial models at work do I?! Deal with it!!” Girl gets resentful, stops making boy food, and sleeps in a separate room.

It seems like there’s lots of money in this case, so perhaps the man doesn’t want to “give” the divorce to his wife because that way she will not have a stake in “his” money.

Whatever. The details of the story don’t really matter, it’s the sentiment that worries me.

1. It’s probably a good thing that divorce laws have slackened over the years. Although NY State’s grounds for divorce should always be no brainers (he hits you? OBVIOUSLY get divorced) I think that an emotionally barren marriage is pretty bad too. Both parties should always have the option of leaving the marriage if it becomes emotionally unbearable. I’m not saying that marriage should be easy, or that rough patches shouldn’t be suffered through; but divorce should be permitted if the relationship is only going south AND you are >50% that living alone is a preferable alternative.
2. I think back to a random conversation one of my study abroad teachers in Barcelona initiated in class. She admitted to living with her boyfriend. In fact, she was on her 8th year with this guy and had lived with a former boyfriend for 7 years (something like that). “You Americans seem to judge me for this, but the same thing happens in your country. Your parents get married and divorced before they hit their tenth anniversary. A few years later, they re-marry and perhaps divorce again. Is living with a series of boyfriends not the same thing, minus the official paper?” She has a point, and I think it’s the following:
3. Life is long. I have cycled through several versions of “me” shedding each former identity/phase/preferences/etc like (oh my god, what shitty simile) a snake shedding its skin (told you so!). It’s true. I was an insecure basket case during high school. I’m still a basket case sometimes, but I know that I’ve led a more interesting life than the people I used to compare myself to, nor do I have any interest in studying law anymore, nor is the criteria that I look for in men the same. I’ve had several boyfriends in the last decade and each one has been completely different, yet complimentary to the version of me that they happened to date. The point is—Will the man that I meet in my late 20s, the man I will likely marry, be the right man for me in my 30s? 50s?
4. In fact, science has extended life expectancy beyond anything experienced by previous generations. Would the idealized couples of our past have made it through their 60s, 70s and 80s?
5. Is being alone once the two personalities diverge a preferable alternative to being together? Does a 40-year-old have the same dating options as a 20-year-old (hell no). Is being alone the optimal way for socializing in your adulthood (hell no). With the exception of big city life (i.e. NY), I think that society is built for couples. Plus, raising a family single handed is expensive and probably not good for children. This other article says that divorce correlates with higher levels of poverty in single-mother households. Poverty = less opportunities for children = even worse than living in a house where mom/dad get along but are not in love?

It seems like I just did a full circle. I argued that having the option to divorce is good, that perhaps long term relationships are not ideal, yet living alone is definitely not a good thing.

My bottom line is that I hope to marry someone who is like a best friend to me. My definition of a best friend is particular (phenomenal conversations, tons of respect, and unconditional support among other things). I figure that if you have these things nailed, then one or both partners in the marriage can continue to evolve without posing major damage to the marriage. Why? Because the changes in the person will only spur great conversation (an elixir, in my case) and the underlying foundation of respect and support kind of serves like muscle memory….you just know what to do, you know to keep on “being there” because that’s what you’ve done in the past. That’s my conclusion…marry someone that also plays the role of a (best) friend and you may be able to avoid the pitfalls of change.

What can I say—The Elle Article freaked me out.

I just finished watching the latest Brothers and Sisters online and am absolutely in shock with the marriage proposal at the end of the episode.

For those of you who aren’t familiar with the show, Kevin is one of the “Brothers” in the family that this show is about. He is a successful lawyer and he is gay.

Gay characters on TV isn’t a new concept, but openly out scenes on the public airwaves is relatively new. This show depicts real moments in a gay man’s life. Perhaps ABC raises eyebrows for showing gay makeout scenes but what I really respect is that the show goes beyond sexuality and presents a character that is multidimensional, that deals with family issues, stress at work, etc.

I mean, does your day revolve 100% around about your sexuality? Mine doesn’t. My day is about working, eating, talking to people, whatever. That I’m straight is only a detail that hardly matters in the “everyday moments” that is my life.
ABC Rocks because it doesn’t use homosexual characters to simply get laughs, to exploit the “lisp,” to focus on the scandalous girl-on-girl kissing, etc. I don’t know. I feel like that this particular show does a superb job of proving that there is nothing unusual about the everyday existence of a gay person.

I was inspired to write this post because of the proposal scene which was just AWESOME. I want somene to propose like that to me…that the fiance is a guy is besides the point. What I loved was the sentiment.