Information Security & US & Life & Love & Fashion & Hacking & Passion

Whether it's milking venomous spiders or picking up roadkill, the secret to career fulfillment is not to follow your passions, but to chase your opportunities.

Mike Rowe

I've been thinking about the first time I castrated a lamb with my teeth. (It's a real job, I swear.) I was anxious, and judging by the sounds coming from the lamb, I wasn't the only one. He was propped up on the fence rail, pinned in place by a cheerful rancher named Albert, who was holding the animal's legs apart for my convenience. The blood in Albert's mustache was still wet from his demonstration moments before, and he spoke in a way that reminded me of the directions on a bottle of shampoo. "Grab scrotum. Cut tip. Expose testicles. Bend over. Bite down. Snap your head back. Spit testicles into bucket. Rinse and Repeat."

It wasn't the first time I found myself cocking my head like an Irish Setter, wondering if I'd somehow misheard the instruction. (Spit testicles in bucket? Really?) I had assumed the same expression a few months earlier, when a jovial bridge worker explained that I would be walking up a skinny suspension cable 600 feet in the air to change a light bulb over The Straits of Mackinac, which connect Lake Michigan to Lake Huron. Likewise, when the happy-go-lucky Shark Suit Tester casually informed me that I would be leaping into the middle of a feeding frenzy to "field-test" the efficacy of his "bite-proof shark suit."

I didn't create my show on the Discovery Channel, Dirty Jobs with Mike Rowe, to get myself killed or scare myself half to death. I created it to show that there are hundreds of ways to make a living that no one was talking about. After four years and 200 dirty jobs, I'm no longer surprised by the variety of opportunities out there. What does surprise me is the fact that everybody I've met on this gig--with the possible exception of the lamb--seems to be having a ball.

It's true. People with dirty jobs are in on some sort of a joke. Maggot farmers are ecstatic. Leech wranglers are exultant. I've personally witnessed lumberjacks and roadkill picker-uppers whistling while they work. And don't even get me started on the crab-fishermen, spider-venom collectors and chicken-sexers--they're having such a blast they've sworn off vacation. So why are people with dirty jobs having more fun than the rest of us?

The answer, (aside from the fact that they're still employed) is because they are blissfully sheltered from the worst advice in the world. I refer, of course, to those preposterous platitudes lining the hallways of corporate America, extolling virtues like "Teamwork," "Determination" and "Efficiency." You've seen them--saccharine-sweet pieces of schmaltzy sentiment, oozing down from snow capped mountains, crashing waterfalls and impossible rainbows. In particular, I'm thinking of a specific piece of nonsense that implores in earnest italics, to always, always ... Follow Your Passion!

In the long history of inspirational pabulum, "follow your passion" has got to be the worst. Even if this drivel were confined to the borders of the cheap plastic frames that typically surround it, I'd condemn the whole sentiment as dangerous, not because it's cliché, but because so many people believe it. Over and over, people love to talk about the passion that guided them to happiness. When I left high school--confused and unsure of everything--my guidance counselor assured me that it would all work out, if I could just muster the courage to follow my dreams. My Scoutmaster said to trust my gut. And my pastor advised me to listen to my heart. What a crock.

Why do we do this? Why do we tell our kids--and ourselves--that following some form of desire is the key to job satisfaction? If I've learned anything from this show, it's the folly of looking for a job that completely satisfies a "true purpose." In fact, the happiest people I've met over the last few years have not followed their passion at all--they have instead brought it with them.

(CNN) -- When it comes to vetting potential high-level advisers, is President-elect Barack Obama too cautious for his own good?

President-elect Barack Obama's transition team is subjecting prospective employees to rigorous vetting.

As a presidential candidate, the former Illinois senator quickly adopted the nickname "No Drama Obama" for the meticulous level of prudence he applied to nearly every campaign speech, strategy decision and personnel appointment. The result was a nearly two-year-long presidential bid most notable for its seeming lack of a damaging gaffe or embarrassing misstep.

But some political observers say the president-elect's similar caution with respect to recruiting new administration officials and key high-level advisers may be turning away a string of qualified candidates wary of subjecting themselves and their families to the most rigid presidential vetting process on record.

After all, in addition to the already invasive FBI background check, the Obama team is requiring prospective candidates to complete a seven-page questionnaire that requires the disclosure of nearly every last private detail. In addition to the obvious questions involving past criminal history, candidates are asked about personal diaries, past blog posts, and the financial entanglements of extended family members.

"This questionnaire they've been giving to people who are thinking about signing up for a government job is extremely invasive," said David Gergen, a CNN senior political analyst and adviser to four past presidents

"I've never seen anything like this at the presidential level before -- the FBI asks these kind of questions, but to have the presidential transition team asking these questions requires ... great volumes of records that have to be checked out."

The most recent victim of the process appears to be Chicago businesswoman Penny Pritzker, the longtime Obama supporter and major Democratic fundraiser who was said to be the president-elect's top choice for commerce secretary.

Pritzker publicly took herself out of the running on Thursday, issuing a statement saying she had submitted no information to begin the vetting process and citing "obligations here in Chicago that make it difficult for me to serve at this time."

It could also be the case the multibillionaire Pritzker didn't want her corporation's financial ties fully made public or her family, among Chicago's most prominent, painstakingly investigated.

Sources close to the Obama transition say Pritzker's decision is not surprising given the nature of the vetting process, one they themselves have described as stressful.

But political analysts say the Obama team's unprecedented degree of scrutiny could result in several qualified individuals deciding to forgo consideration for a top post. This could especially be true among individuals considered for economic roles in the administration from the private sector who might be more financially entangled than those who have been longtime public servants.

"There is no question about the fact that the burdensome nature and the probing nature and the disclosure required for people coming into the administration is a deal killer for them," said Kenneth Gross, a political law and ethics lawyer in Washington.

"It could in several instances cause people who are qualified who will do a great job in the administration say, 'Look, I'm just not doing it.' "

The meticulous process has also reportedly caused a degree of consternation between the Obama aides and those to Sen. Hillary Clinton, believed to be the president-elect's top choice for secretary of state.

The New York Times reported Thursday that the relationship between the two camps has grown "increasingly sour" as the process dragged on and information steadily leaked to the media about the degree of which former President Bill Clinton's finances were being investigated. Still, aides close to the Obama transition team say the president-elect is on track to nominate his former rival to the secretary of state post next week.

But even if Obama's vetting process appears overly scrupulous, aides to the future commander-in-chief are likely more wary of an early disastrous appointment that would cause a wave of negative media coverage and raise early questions about Obama's leadership skills.

Such was the case in 1992, when the fresh-faced Bill Clinton nominated two separate attorney generals -- Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood -- both of whom had to withdraw themselves from the nomination process over revelations they had previously employed illegal immigrants. The embarrassing debacle came at the worst time for the new president, already facing criticisms over his shaky and seemingly disorganized transition.

"You'd rather have a smooth transition than a bumpy one," said Paul Begala, a former top aide to President Clinton and an analyst for CNN. "But a bumpy start does not necessarily presage a bad presidency."

President Bush and his aides also were embarrassed after nominating former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik to be the homeland security secretary. Heavily recommended by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, the Bush administration appeared to do little significant vetting of New York's top cop, and Kerik withdrew his name shortly after he was nominated.

Kerik said he was resigning because he had inadvertently employed an illegal immigrant, though questions about his stock holdings and an affair with book publisher Judith Regan soon arose -- further reflecting poorly on the Bush administration's judgment in selecting candidates to top leadership posts.

As presidential advisers look to past transition mistakes, it may only be natural that the staff vetting process gets more intense with each new administration. This is especially the case with Obama's transition team, largely constituted of former staff members to President Clinton who witnessed his bumpy first several months in the Oval Office.

"The Clinton transition was the worst in presidential history, so it's not surprising Obama's strict vetting process was designed by Clinton people," said Stephen Hess, a veteran staffer of the Eisenhower and Nixon administrations and the author of the new book "What Do We Do Now?: A Workbook for the President-elect."

With Stringer's support, Schaaff has managed to break down silos and persuade rival factions to cooperate

Sony Chief Executive Howard Stringer bristles every time he gets the question: Why can't the Japanese electronics giant be more like Apple? The maker of the iPod, iPhone, and Mac computers consistently delivers supercool gadgets that are easy to use, while Sony sells music players, TVs, and cameras that get mixed reviews and often don't even work well with other Sony (SNE) products. "Sony is a very big company," Stringer says by way of explanation. "Our toughest competitors are niche organizations."

Stringer is quick to admit, though, that Sony may face a troubled future if it can't rival Apple (AAPL) in creating simple software that makes its gadgets fun and in giving consumers easy access to music and videos. Apple's iTunes store has long made filling iPods a cinch, but Sony's consumer electronics and PlayStation divisions have only recently started to integrate their offerings with those of the company's movie studio and music label. That's one likely reason why Sony's products earn profit margins of 10% or so, compared with the 30% margins that Apple's devices command.

So Stringer went straight to the source. Three years ago, he hired Tim Schaaff, a top lieutenant of Apple CEO Steve Jobs, and created the title of senior vice-president for software development for him. Although Schaaff was expected to spend most of his time in California, he's so integral to Stringer's plan to remake Sony that he has a direct reporting line to the CEO. Schaaff's role has grown quickly, and today he also has a hand in product design, licensing, planning, and engineering. "When we brought Tim on board, it was a recognition that we needed someone whose experience crosses multiple borders," Stringer says.

A KNACK FOR KILLER PRODUCTS

Schaaff doesn't come across as an agent of change. The 48-year-old Dartmouth grad studiously avoids the press. When he speaks, he does so slowly and deliberately, giving the impression that he is reading from index cards inside his head. But at Apple, Schaaff showed a knack for translating geeky ideas into killer products. The self-taught software engineer oversaw development of Apple's QuickTime video-streaming format, which serves as the foundation of iTunes, the iPod, and the iPhone.

Stringer is clearly hoping Schaaff can seed Sony with Apple's Silicon Valley entrepreneurial culture. When the Welsh-born Stringer became Sony's first non-Japanese CEO in early 2005, he pledged to make the company "cool again." While Schaaff has made important strides toward that goal, Sony clearly needs to inject some zing into its products. On Oct. 29 the company said net earnings for the quarter ended Sept. 30 were off by 72% from the year-earlier period. The report came on the heels of a warning that profits for the year would fall by more than half, due to the strengthening yen and lackluster sales of TVs and digital cameras.

It was more evidence that after a three-year makeover, Sony is still struggling to get its groove back. Now, as consumers rein in spending, they're even less likely to buy the expensive gizmos Sony plans to unveil over the coming months. That would be a major setback for "Sony United," Stringer's program to turn the company's fractured family of products and services into a model of integration. The goal is to sell Bravia televisions that connect to the Web and download the latest Spider-Man movie, Walkman phones that offer tunes from Sony artists such as Beyoncé, and e-book devices that ask if you want to purchase that new John Grisham thriller.

Stringer has given Schaaff unprecedented freedom to conquer resistance and boost cooperation among Sony's myriad—and often warring—units. Schaaff has also served as something akin to secretary of state, working with other companies to help make Sony products more appealing.

In what may the biggest sign yet that banks are getting serious about attacking the nationwide wave of home foreclosures, giant JPMorgan Chase (JPM) announced on Oct. 31 that it is sharply ramping up its efforts to restructure the loans in its massive mortgage portfolio. For the next 90 days, JPMorgan will not place any new homes into foreclosure.

The banking behemoth, which acquired troubled lender Washington Mutual on Sept. 25, says it hopes to modify terms for 400,000 homeowners, accounting for $70 billion in loans. Among the steps it is taking: eliminating toxic "pay option" loans, offering new loan terms to homeowners before they default, and hiring an additional 300 loan counselors to bring the company's total to 2,500. "While Chase has helped many families already, we feel it is our responsibility to provide additional help to homeowners during these challenging times," said Charlie Scharf, head of Chase's retail financial services, in a prepared statement.

The JPMorgan Chase announcement comes as the U.S. bailout strategy seems to be shifting from the initial approach of having the Treasury Dept. buy $700 billion worth of troubled mortgage assets from lenders, to investing directly in big banks to spur more loans (BusinessWeek, 10/29/08), and now toward a coordinated effort to restructure loan terms for individual borrowers. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Shelia Bair has been pushing to have the federal government take a more active roll in loan restructurings (BusinessWeek.com, 10/30/08). The effort could be modeled after the fast-track mortgage modification program the FDIC put in place after taking over failed IndyMac bank in July.

More Than 2.2 Million Are 60 Days Late

The banking and mortgage industries have been criticized for not doing enough to prevent foreclosures and to modify the terms of troubled loans. According to the most recent data compiled by the Hope Now Alliance of lenders, counselers, and other industry players, lenders started the foreclosure process on 565,000 homeowners in this year's third quarter. Some 265,000 homes were actually foreclosed on, nearly twice the number from the third quarter of 2007. Moreover, more than 2.2 million homeowners are more than 60 days delinquent in their mortgage payments, also a near doubling from last year.

The Hope Now Alliance was put together to keep borrowers in their homes. However, while Hope Now says it reached loan modification terms with 593,000 borrowers in this year's third quarter, only 265,000 actually had the terms of their loans changed. The rest merely entered into payment plans, typically where the bank agrees to be repaid past-due payments and late fees over time. Mortgage industry critics say borrowers aren't really out of danger unless the interest rates or principal is reduced, lowering monthly payments.

With IndyMac, the FDIC is reducing interest rates (BusinessWeek, 10/8/08), typically for five years, in an effort to keep borrowers' payments to no more than 34% of their monthly income.

No More Pay-Option Mortgages

JPMorgan Chase says it's reviewing its entire portfolio to determine which homeowners may be in trouble. The company says it will eliminate pay-option ARMs, a controversial type of adjustable-rate mortgage that allowed borrowers to defer part of their monthly payments, rolling the difference onto the principal they owed. Borrowers were often enticed to take such loans by the lower payments but now find themselves owing even more on their dwellings, even as home values have slid. A recent study by research firm First American CoreLogic found nearly one in five borrowers in the U.S. owes more on a home than it is worth.

New York City-based JPMorgan Chase also says it will proactively contact borrowers with prequalified offers to reduce their interest rates or loan principals and establish 24 new regional counseling centers to provide face-to-face help in markets with high delinquency rates. Many borrowers in trouble say it is difficult to reach lenders when they want to renegotiate loans. Many often feel they have to stop making payments to get a bank's attention.

On Oct. 6, Bank of America (BAC) announced a settlement with attorneys general in 11 states that involved an aggressive loan modification program involving 400,000 borrowers and $8.4 billion in interest rate reductions. Bank of America's Countrywide division had been accused by state officials of putting borrowers into loans they couldn't afford during the boom just so it could resell those loans to Wall Street at a fat profit. Bank of America acquired Countrywide in July.