Return to Transcripts main page

Your Money

David Heyman Discusses Port Security; Some Say Energy Independence Could Be Back For America; GE Stocks; Marriage And Money Disputes; Getting Along With Co-Workers; Competitive Search Engine Market; Pornography Web Sites Say Google Takes Away Business

Aired March 04, 2006 - 13:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Still much more ahead on "CNN LIVE SATURDAY." IN THE MONEY is next. Here's a preview.
JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: Coming up on IN THE MONEY. A security hole so big you could sail a ship right through it. Find out why U.S. ports are vulnerable no matter who is running them.

Plus the battle over your stuff. See how to make a will so it doesn't set off a family feud when you are no longer among us.

And put your boss on a leash and then lead him right out of the building. We will learn about some smart ways to handle the people you work with.

All that and more coming up right after this quick check of the headlines.

WHITFIELD: President Bush is right now heading home from Pakistan. These pictures just in to CNN. Mr. Bush says he and President Pervez Musharraf recommitted their nations to hunting down terrorists. Prior to his stop in Islamabad, President Bush made visits to India and Afghanistan. Right now, as we speak, Air Force One taxing down the runway in Islamabad.

More bloodshed in Iraq today. Ten people were killed in several attacks. The bloodiest incident happened at a busy market outside Baghdad. Seven people died and 15 others were wounded when a mortar round landed there.

Those are the headlines. I'm Fredricka Whitfield. More news as it happens. IN THE MONEY is next.

ANNOUNCER: From New York City America's financial capital, this is IN THE MONEY.

CAFFERTY: Welcome to the program. I'm Jack Cafferty. Coming up on today's edition of IN THE MONEY, it's not about the boss. It's about the security guard. Find out why the squabble over America's ports could pay off in some unexpected ways.

Also ahead, the ultimate in self-serve energy independence as America's new battle cry at the pump. See if the results sound as good as the slogan.

Work is no problem. It's the people that make it difficult. We'll talk with the author of "Working with You is Killing Me."

Joining me today, a couple of IN THE MONEY veterans. "Headline News" correspondent Jennifer Westhoven; and "Fortune" Magazine; editor at large Andy Serwer.

So it's Oscar weekend. I wonder if they are going to do any better in the ratings than the winter Olympics. The answer is probably. The winter Olympics got beat up pretty bad. A lot of hype about the Oscars. I haven't seen any of the movies. Are they any good?

ANDY SERWER, EDITOR AT LARGE, "FORTUNE" MAGAZINE: Yes, some of them are pretty good. I saw a bunch of them, about 40 million people watch the Oscars typically. It will be interesting to see if people tune in, "Brokeback," "Crash," "Capote," "Good Night and Good Luck." I saw "Good Night and Good Luck," and I saw "Crash." "Crash" is pretty cool.

CAFFERTY: Like a chance encounter.

SERWER: I think you'd like that one. A lot of arty movies. No "Raiders of the Lost Ark," no Harry Potter, no "Lord of the Rings," things like that.

JENNIFER WESTHOVEN, "HEADLINE NEWS": Well there is a lot of fun about the hosts this year too. That is suppose to be all different Jon Stewart is going to be there. I am thinking that I'm interested in it to watch him. I haven't seen any of these movies either.

CAFFERTY: My guess is that President Bush and some of his colleagues in the administration will get a whooping from Mr. Stewart on Oscar night. He's got to be doing jokes about the Dubai Ports deal and there will be a joke about nuclear technology for mangos right? You could help write some of this stuff sitting here.

SERWER: The thing is I guess you know that Chris Rock learned you can't really make fun of the Hollywood swells too much because they don't -- they got kind of thin skin.

CAFFERTY: Humorless.

SERWER: They didn't like that when he made fun of them.

WESTHOVEN: I bet he'll do a lot of making fun. He often talks about dubbing New York a lot. I bet he will work that in pretty good.

CAFFERTY: Well something to look forward to. I probably won't watch because I haven't seen any of the movies.

WESTHOVEN: And the fashion.

CAFFERTY: Yes, that, too. The flap over America's ports is focused on who winds up running things in the back office. But all the noise out of Washington could fire up a different kind of dialogue. And this one is about security where it really counts. For a look at what's at stake in the port fight we're joined by the David he is the director of the Homeland Security program at the Department for Strategic and International Studies. David Heyman nice to have you with us.

DAVID HEYMAN, CSIS: Good to be here.

CAFFERTY: What's your take on the firestorm of reaction when this thing was announced? I mean I haven't seen a heart rate this rapid in this country over anything in years.

HEYMAN: Well, it was -- I was shocked. I thought we've lost all sense of sanity in Washington. And then I realized, well, gosh, we're post-Katrina. We've got congress upset that they weren't notified about domestic surveillance programs.

And now they are not notified about port deals with foreign countries that may have security risks. And elections are coming up in the fall. And this is really about politics. And I think you've got a lot of folks out there right now saying presidents at 34 percent ratings. I better make sure I'm not on that same page.

WESTHOVEN: The Congress, we've suddenly got the stepped up 45- day review going on. There are a couple of other deals going on, too, where Congress is going to take a look. Do you think that Congress getting involved is just political or is that something that's going to be really good for national security in the long run?

HEYMAN: Well, it's questionable. We've got about 1500 of these CFIUS investigations looking at national security of foreign business transactions over the last several years. And maybe about 75 of them a year. The problem is, if Congress gets involved, we could slow down commerce big time in America and that could have economic implications. By and large over the last 10, 15 years, I think we've had two issues in national security. Maybe four, and the real question is whether we need to now look at critical infrastructure in terms of security post-9/11.

Critical infrastructure is much more important than it was pre- 9/11 and foreign investment prior to 9/11, we looked at that because of defense production capacity. Now it's questionable as to whether we expand the CFIUS process.

SERWER: David protecting the nation's ports is an issue though that has been festering for four years now. I know people like Jack have been asking what the heck are we doing about this? What should we do? I mean ...

HEYMAN: Well this is what's tragic and perhaps the silver lining in all of this. The real security issues, what's really at stake is the fact that the government, which is wholly responsible for the security of our ports, the coast guard, the customs and borders officials, the Department of Homeland Security, they are responsible for protecting our ports and we've grossly under funded and the investments and resources put in place are so slow to be put in place that we've got security issues. And I think today people are confusing the real security of the ports that the government is responsible for and this, you know, non- issue more or less with the Dubai Ports World.

CAFFERTY: It's ironic isn't it they can put this ports deal together for Dubai Ports World in a matter of weeks but in four-and-a- half years they can't do anything to protect the seaports of this country.

HEYMAN: And in fact the goal for screening containers coming into this country is by 2010 will do 86 percent across the board. Right now we're at 12 percent in the country. I mean if Congress were to have the reaction they had last week about the security of our ports on a day-to-day basis, we would be getting somewhere today.

CAFFERTY: The only reason Congress reacted that way, I think is because the American people reacted that way. The administration has spent four-and-a-half years creating a climate of fear in this country. Terror alert levels going up and down. Clear plastic sheeting and duct tape. The boogey man is going to get you. So all of a sudden When it's announced an Arab country is going to take over operation of these six ports. The American public went crazy. You said earlier this is about politics.

I beg to differ a little bit, I think it's about national security and I think it is about the fact that the American people are afraid to a degree to have operational presence in six of America's major ports by a company that is owned by a country that was connected to al Qaeda, that served as an operational and financial base of support for the terrorists. Two of the terrorists who flew those planes into the World Trade Center came from the Emirates. I think there's a legitimate issue here, 70 percent of the American people don't want this to happen.

HEYMAN: Right but when you frame it that way and if that's the policy. It wasn't the United Arab Emirates that was sponsoring terrorism. It was the location that these people came from. If we use that as a standard for policy we wouldn't be doing business deals with Germany where the Hamburg cell which planned most of the 9/11 attacks came from.

We wouldn't be doing business with the United Kingdom where Richard Reid, the shoe bomber came from after 9/11 and where now we see homegrown al Qaeda blowing up subways. We need to look at this from a serious security analysis and not from a rhetorical, that's where they came from perspective.

CAFFERTY: All right, David. We're going to have to leave it there. One quick question. Do you think this thing is going to go through?

HEYMAN: I think the deal will go through. I think after 45 days, people will recognize that the security issues can be addressed. And if they need to get more assurances, they'll get them. Dubai Ports and the president have too much at stake for this not tot go through. CAFFERTY: All right. Well we will see. My guess is if this goes through there will be more than one Congressman who is not re- elected come the midterms. Thank you for being with us, it has been interesting. David Heyman director of Homeland Security program with the Center for Strategic and International studies.

When we come back on IN THE MONEY, for forget energy independence. How about energy intelligence. See if Justin Fox of "Fortune" Magazine can change your thinking about what's in your tank.

And wills and wont's. It took a fight over inheritance to get a silicone train wreck named Anna Nicole Smith all the way to the Supreme Court. Discover what her late husband should have known about making out his will.

Plus, Google news. Find out how picking up on a porn site led to a court date for the search engine company. Back in a flash.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAFFERTY: Politicians and pundits have made a lot of noise about becoming an energy independent nation. But our next guest says that move could create an economic environmental and political disaster. Say what? Our good friend Justin Fox editor at large at "Fortune" Magazine joins us to explain. Justine good to see you, as always.

JUSTIN FOX, EDITOR AT LARGE, "FORTUNE" MAGAZINE: Good to see you Jack.

CAFFERTY: This is one of those things that you do a double take on. What do you mean we shouldn't be energy independent? What do you mean we shouldn't be energy independent?

FOX: I don't think being energy independent is necessarily the worst thing that could ever happen some day 200, 300 years in the future. I just mean if we make that our goal right now we're going to make some really stupid decisions because what we need right now are two things. There are concerns about pollution. We should be moving away from fossil fuels, especially oil and coal.

And there are concerns about our nation's security, the -- basically economic security. The fact that we're pretty vulnerable to quick rises in oil prices. Although we're much less vulnerable than we were in the 1970s. But those are different matters than just saying we don't want energy from outside of our shore from outside the U.S.

SERWER: Why shouldn't we just turn to corn, coal and nukes, Justin? Those are the holy grails right now. Then we don't have to import oil from those Arab nations that are holding us hostage. What's wrong with that? I don't understand.

FOX: What's wrong with it, if we find a way to cost effectively do -- cost effectively counting the cost of pollution, do coal, corn and nukes, they cost less than doing oil or the same, then I'm all for that. That's great. But that's not where we are right now. And so I think all of those things in varying -- I mean, here's a good one on coal. Is it better to be taking the top off some mountain in Kentucky and going off and burning coal that in some older power plant that's not very clean and you are contributing more to global warming with coal than with any other fuel source.

Or is it better to import a little more natural gas? I don't know. I think it's better to bring in a little more natural gas, which is a far cleaner fuel, which can be used to easily convert it into hydrogen to run fuel cell engines. But that's a move away from energy independence and a move towards more intelligent energy policy.

WESTHOVEN: Justin, one of the things you talk about is you say America needs to get the most bang for its buck as it can out of every barrel of oil. Right now it's cheap to get this oil out of the sands of the Middle East. If we don't do it, other countries are going to do it.

But are you ignoring the idea that I think a lot of Americans really care about, which is, this kind of ties that we have with a lot of these oil-producing countries, with Hugo Chavez, which essentially gives him money and a lot of allegations about human rights abuses, with Nigeria, where the government is seen to be corrupt.

With the Middle East where there's all kinds of problems. I don't even want to get into that. I mean, that money is having a lot of ramifications out there that I think your argument may not address. What do you think about that?

FOX: Well, I think the problem is our dependence on oil, not our dependence on oil from those particular places. If we were less dependent as a nation on oil, either because we all drove hybrid engine cars or because we had much more efficiently heated homes, much more efficiently insulated and heated homes in the northeast, we would feel less dependent. A lot of oil would still be coming from those places. The perverse issue is the more we as a nation conserve and move away from oil, that will keep oil prices down worldwide.

When you keep oil prices down worldwide, the oil under U.S. soil is at this point is about the most expensive oil in the world because we've pumped out all the easy stuff. It would basically cause wells to shut down in the U.S. if we get oil prices down.

Yet getting oil prices down and using less oil is what we want. So it's this kind of crazy thing where if we want to get away from oil dependent, the first few steps are we're going to become more dependent on the cheapest oil in the world which comes from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, wherever else. But we'll be at less economic vulnerability to those places because we won't need the oil as much. .

CAFFERTY: Aren't we just toying with an eventual date with the devil on this stuff? The polar ice caps are dissolving. The air is getting worse. The temperature is going up. The politicians trying to deal with the Middle East countries that control so many of these reserves are being ... FOX: But none of those first three points have anything to do with energy independence.

CAFFERTY: Well, of course they do. Come on, Justin.

FOX: No, those three points have to do with moving away from reliance on fossil fuels. This is a totally different thing.

CAFFERTY: You can achieve energy independence using other kinds of fuels. Can you not? Nonpolluting, non-greenhouse gas producing nuclear fuels. Nuclear energy doesn't cause the polar ice caps to melt.

FOX: Correct. I'm all with you there, I think that is fine, I just think you should at some level maybe this is the silly semantic argument that what I'm for is that we state our goals as, OK, we want less pollution. We're concerned about global warming.

SERWER: What are we doing less business with Saudi Arabia as a political and financial and energy goal. Isn't that prudent?

FOX: There is really -- the way oil markets work, it's meaningless.

SERWER: Because it's all one big pot.

FOX: It just sloshes around. It's one big pot. It's one big market.

SERWER: That's problematic. As you'd suggest, we were using Iraqi oil during the oil embargo right?

FOX: More or less because it was affecting the global price of oil. It doesn't matter where exactly the barrel of oil comes from. There's this big global oil market and everything sloshes around in it.

CAFFERTY: Justin it is good to see you. You stop by this program anytime you are in the neighborhood. It's always a pleasure.

FOX: Will do.

CAFFERTY: Justin fox, editor at large "Fortune" Magazine.

Time for our look ahead. Former Enron CFO Andrew Fastow expected to take the stand in the conspiracy trial of Kenny boy, that would be Ken Lay and his fellow defendant worm Jeff Skilling. He is considered the star witness. Fastow, for the prosecution. One of the reasons he's going to be so good is because he's facing 10 years in the joint for his role in the Enron scandal. So that should be pretty good when he gets on the witness stand.

Tuesday, the New York Stock exchange will end its 213-year run as a member-owned stock market. I've had this in my date book for years. It's a merger with Archipelago Holdings expected to close allowing the combined NYSE group to become a publicly traded company. At last, but not least, on Friday, the jobs report, which we can always relate to, unemployment rate, new jobs created, et cetera, that usually impacts the bond market and stock market. Some of the stuff to look forward in the week to come.

Coming up after the break, Andy.

SERWER: Oh coming up after the break. "Putting the g in whiz in GE. Mixed news about the company is keeping investors on their toes. We'll tell you how the stock has been playing on Wall Street.

Plus, learn how to keep your job without losing your mind. We'll speak with an expert about getting along with your colleagues at work.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SERWER: "Fortune" Magazine recently named General Electric the most admired company of the year. But there's not too much to admire about GE's shares. The stock price hasn't moved much this year or in the last four years for that later matter. The question is whether the stock will continue treading water or finally move ahead. GE is our stock of the week.

You know, Jack Welch has the golden touch in many ways and he left that company in September of '01 when the stock was high that year. It had already gone down a little bit. Turned it over to Jeffrey Immelt. Poor Jeffrey, he's been unable to get that baby moving. A lot of blue chips and a lot of big company stocks haven't moved. It's been oil companies, energy companies, especially things like Apple Computer and Whole Foods. Just tough going for them, right?

WESTHOVEN: He's trying to position them for a green future. But in the meantime, it looks like their earnings don't have much juice. Not too much exciting going on. Even analysts' reports I read they don't seem to thrilled.

CAFFERTY: How much is Immelt versus Welch? Welch was one of the great corporate leaders; maybe in American history in terms of what he did to the value of that company at the time he controlled it.

SERWER: I think a lot of it has to do with that. You said it yourself, one of the great corporate CEOs of the past 100 years. He was a spinmeister too. He could charm people, tell people what's going on. Some of it was the times. At that point conglomerates looked pretty good, you had building companies in a bull market. Now you take companies apart in a bear market.

Everyone asks GE has all these different businesses. Why don't they go together? They don't really go together. Immelt doesn't really have a great answer for that. Jack Welch used to say because I can make them better.

CAFFERTY: He knew how to buy companies that could make money. Didn't matter if there was a lot of synergy. He would buy this company that would make widgets, and this company that made vacuum cleaners. Those two companies would add to the bottom line. What about the stock price? I mean if you broke GE up, it's probably worth more than $33 a share.

SERWER: That is right, I don't think that's ever going to happen or at least not in the near future.

CAFFERTY: I'm just thinking in terms of buying the stock.

SERWER: Your right, but the other thing about that, Jack, is it's not a really cheap stock. It has a price earnings multiple of 20 and so I question whether -- the real thing to me is, is this dead money or, look, it hasn't gone up in four-and-a-half years. At some point its it's going to go up. It has a dividend of about three percent now.

WESTHOVEN: In a way, they didn't break their sales up. They just sold that huge insurance Jenworth last week. So they are in a way trying to find ways to do it, it is just that right now it's not budging that stock at all.

SERWER: And those Olympic ratings didn't help NBC, did they?

CAFFERTY: Took it in the ear. Tough stuff.

SERWER: All right. Coming up, honey money. Anna Nicole Smith is angling for a bigger chunk of her late husband's estate. Find out how much the oil baron could have bulletproofed his will.

Also ahead, is it just a coincidence that work rhymes with jerk? That's nice. We'll get tips on managing your career.

And building a better search engine. Ask.com has dumped its butler refugees and relaunched with a new look. Find out if it's catching on with web users.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: Hello. I'm Fredricka Whitfield at the CNN Center in Atlanta. Here's a quick look at what's happening now in the news.

President Bush is headed back home after holding talks in Pakistan. The fight against terrorism dominated those discussions. Mr. Bush says he was personally reassured by President Pervez Musharraf that Pakistan is committed to hunting down al Qaeda terrorists. Before visiting Pakistan the president made stops in Afghanistan and India.

A rare personal revelation from British Prime Minister Tony Blair. In an interview on British TV, Blair said he has struggled with his conscience over the decision to go to war in Iraq. And he says god and history will judge whether that decision was the right one.

I'll have all the day's news at the top of the hour. Now back to more of IN THE MONEY. WESTHOVEN: There are three things you can count on in life death, taxes and reality TV. And all three came to a head this week when Anna Nicole Smith made an appearance at the highest court in the land. The case stems from an 11-year court battle over millions of dollars supposedly left to her by her dead billionaire husband who was decidedly older than her.

Looks like his son doesn't want Anna Nicole to get a penny. This may sound just like the problems of the rich. But our next guest has seen plenty of battles of the wills. We all saw this Anna Nicole stuff all week long. Does this really happen in most people's lives?

KAJA WHITEHOUSE, AUTHOR: Well, with lesser amounts of money, yes. Yes, will contests happen? People fight over money. You know, second marriages are always a cause for fights. And this is actually exactly that. A case where a man married somebody else and the children don't like this new marriage and they want to fight over the money after the husband died.

SERWER: OK. I don't want to belabor the -- Kaja, the point of Anna Nicole, but I actually want to talk about her a little bit more. Isn't she in the right? This poor woman, poor, poor woman, she really was in a tough place. Was she right or wrong? Where do you come off on this?

WHITEHOUSE: Well, it's hard for me to decide, and there have been a number of courts -- first the probate court deciding on the case and then there was a bankruptcy court, which came out and said something else. It's hard to know who is right and wrong here. Certainly, there are very clear lessons to be learned.

WESTHOVEN: I'm 35. I'm not married. I don't have any kids. Do I need a will?

WHITEHOUSE: Yes.

CAFFERTY: Then you should leave everything to me.

SERWER: Careful. She has some obligations.

WHITEHOUSE: You need a will and you need to leave everything to me. A lot of people think that wills are for, you know, after you retire. You write a will when you retire. This just isn't the case.

SERWER: How often do you have to update it? I actually have a will. Then the lawyers call me up and say, well, time to update your will and I say, it sounds like its time for you to make some more money. They call me every 18 months. I don't need to do it every 18 months, right?

WHITEHOUSE: No, definitely not. Definitely not. And really it should only be updated with major changes in your life. You get a divorce, you get married, you have children, you know, maybe you wrote your will when you didn't have children.

SERWER: Often all those things do happen.

WHITEHOUSE: So in those cases you do want to make changes. But, you know it should be written clearly enough that, you know if you add more money or you -- or it may be if you add an additional asset. You want to rewrite it. If you just accumulate more money you shouldn't need to rewrite it.

WESTHOVEN: All right Kaja, thank you so much. If only my grandfather had read this. There was a gravesite battle over his ring by two of my aunts.

WHITEHOUSE: Really.

WESTHOVEN: So many people ...

WHITEHOUSE: That kind of thing happens all the time. Personal belongings.

WESTHOVEN: It's really sad. This book could give a lot of people peace of mind and keep families together.

WHITEHOUSE: I hope so. Thank you.

WESTHOVEN: All right. There are lots more to come here on IN THE MONEY. Up next, you can't get ahead if you don't get along. Find out how to cut down on friction on the job when we speak with the author of "Working with You is Killing Me." Jack? Just kidding.

And retirees who didn't stop at the Sunbelt. We will tell you about them in our "Life after Work" segment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SERWER: You can choose your friends and you can choose your enemies, but you can't choose your relatives or your co-workers. According to our next guest, the biggest challenge at the office is not your job itself. It's getting along with the people you work with. Amen to that. Katherine Crowley is co-author of "Working with You is Killing Me" freeing herself from emotional traps at work. Katherine, welcome to the program.

You know there are a lot of people I work with that have high EQs but really low -- have high IQs but really low EQs, really low emotional quotients, they can't get along with people. Why is that?

KATHERINE CROWLEY, CO-AUTHOR, WORKING WITH YOU IS KILLING ME": Why they have low emotional IQs?

SERWER: Why can't they get along with people?

CROWLEY: That's a great question. What I would say the chances are that's not something that they learned in school and it is not something generally that we're taught in terms of when we're being prepared for the workplace. So most people have no training whatsoever and they get hired to do a job. They think their only job is to perform the work tasks of their position and they don't understand that a huge part of the work environment is getting along with your peers, your colleagues, your boss, our underlings as best you can.

WESTHOVEN: And nobody really teaches us how to do that, how to get along with each other, right?

CROWLEY: Absolutely right. In fact if you look at schools, if you look at the grading system, you are only graded according to how well you perform your exams, you do your homework, how you do the linear tasks of school.

CAFFERTY: What are these emotional traps that you describe that people get caught in. Give us an example or two.

CROWLEY: Well there are many wonderful emotional traps. In our book we actually cover a broad range. There are boundaries and so when the boundary range you can have boundary busters and those would be people who invade your time, your space, and your personal information.

There are roles, actually, that people get trapped in. Confining roles, whether it's that you are the hero or you are a peacemaker or a martyr, a rebel. And somehow that role is limiting your ability to be effective at work.

CAFFERTY: Do you have anything in the book about suck-ups? I mean, because, you know if you go out of your way to try and get along with management you can be perceived as sucking up to them and you don't want that label.

CROWLEY: Yes this is true and that's a very good point Jack. Actually we talk about managing up, and in that we're not talking about sucking up. We're actually talking about learning to do things that will help your boss manage you more effectively. So things like planning regular meetings, keeping a pulse on your boss' priorities, and, you know, solving problems. Coming to your boss with problems already solved. That's slightly different from sucking up.

SERWER: OK. Katherine, by the way you should call him Mr. Cafferty, sir. I mean that's what I do.

CROWLEY: Thank you for that correction.

SERWER: What do we do about these people? I'm attempted to yell, you are a moron. Others I just ignore them. That makes life uncomfortable for me. You know, what about the victims here? Us normal people?

CROWLEY: You are who our book is for. The thing for you normal people actually is we have a four-step process that we introduce in the book called unhooking. And basically, the first thing you have to do is calm yourself down. Usually those workplace irritants stir up emotional feelings in you where you are angry or you are resentful or you just want to kill them in some way. So the first thing we do is we come up with suggestions for how to calm yourself down to -- we call it unhooking physically.

So it's good to breathe, to take a walk, to work out, to really think about the problem or person in a more relaxed state. Then there's an inventory you can take to really assess your situation and see what your options are. And we then walk you through ways of handling the person verbally and business tools. Business actions that you can take to improve your situation.

WESTHOVEN: Now is that the kind of thing are you going to go for a sort of direct confrontation, like could you please stop talking to me when I'm working or maybe you have a boss that just blew up in your face. What do you do?

CROWLEY: Well that we call the exploder, the blow up in your face boss. And in fact, we don't suggest going and confronting an exploder, to tell you the truth. In our book, "Working with You is Killing Me," we really suggest ways for you to manage your reactions to that kind of a boss. Because the fact is that exploders will explode. It's nothing personal. It's going to happen. And your job is to learn how to deflect the anger and still continue to perform the tasks that you are responsible for.

CAFFERTY: What is it about the American business landscape that allows for so many obnoxious, incompetent, just generally unpleasant people to find their way into middle management? Usually the people at the very tops of big corporations are not bad and most of the worker bees aren't bad but it's all these mutants in the middle that make your teeth hurt. Where do they come from and why do they have these jobs?

CROWLEY: That's a great question. I am starting to develop a theory myself, which is that the larger the corporate structure, the easier it is to hide out.

SERWER: Yes.

CROWLEY: And so I think what happens is that they sort of slowly rise up, either because of seniority or political affiliation or something of that nature. They rise up to the middle, and then they can hide out for years and years and years.

WESTHOVEN: And I just sometimes wonder, sometimes you can really feel like you are just in a toxic atmosphere where you are trying to be honest with people -- not here. You are asking people about, you know, maybe you are willing to talk to someone to just talk about what might be going wrong and you find you are with people that they don't mean what they say, you can't trust them. You have a problem. What do you do in that case?

CROWLEY: That's a great question. The final chapter in our book is about corporate culture. That's what you are speaking to. You really have to assess when you are in a company whether the culture is a right fit for you.

So, for example, as you are saying, if you are an honest, up front person and you realize that in the company the general rule of thumb is don't be honest, be covert, manipulate, do tricky things to get what you want, that may not be a good fit for you. And it's going to be very hard to be consistently happy at work when everyone else is playing by a different set of rules.

WESTHOVEN: Katherine, thank you so much for your work being an undercover business therapist.

CROWLEY: Thank you so much.

WESTHOVEN: And may we all land in jobs, maybe all be in corporate cultures that we really like.

In this week's "Life after Work" segment, south of the border. When Nancy Howse was ready to retire, she took a friend's advice and visited San Migle in central Mexico. She liked it so much she actually packed up her bags and decided to move there and she's in good company. Americans make up almost 10 percent of San Miguel's population. It's a community for the self-identified gringo retirees.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NANCY HOWSE: I have the most delightful, beautiful life. I'm just a little person from Alabama, and I get to live this wonderful life every single day.

WESTHOVEN (voice-over): Nancy Howse had never even been to Mexico when a friend of hers said; why not retire south of the border? Now she's living the good life after leaving her real estate job back in Birmingham.

HOWSE: One of the things that is so wonderful about the community of people that live in San Miguel is that everybody is warm and welcoming. We're all people who have left friends and family behind. So that gives us a common -- it's like a level playing field, so to speak. When we all arrive. And people are very helpful to tell you, well; now, this is how you do this.

WESTHOVEN: Set in the mountains four hours north of Mexico City, San Miguel is home to thousands of American retirees. The warm weather, vibrant arts community and affordable household help make this town particularly attractive to those who want something different. Like Nancy. She has a driver, a cook, and a maid and says they bring her closer to the Mexican community.

HOWSE: I am often included in things, personal things, in my staff's lives, like the baptism of their children or the Cincianos. I personally love the peace and quiet and tranquility because for me it's like I have everything. I can't imagine a better life.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WESTHOVEN: There is more ahead here on IN THE MONEY. Coming up, for once, the butler didn't do it. Find out about the revamp at Jeevesask.com and where it fits into the search engine space.

And if you want to sound off about the spokes butler going MIA or there is something else on your mind, drop us a line we want to know what you are thinking about, the address is INTHEMONEY@CNN.com.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SERWER: After a decade of building its brand around a cartoon character names Jeevesask.com has retired its butler and revamped its Web site in effort to compete with search engine top dogs Google, Yahoo! and MSN and AOL. Here to speak with us about the competition in the search engine market is Elinor Mills a senior writer at CNET.com. Elinor welcome to the program.

ELINOR MILLS, SENIOR WRITER, CNET.COM: Thank you.

SERWER: One question I have to ask is why get rid of the butler. I mean that was one thing they had going for them, a brand. Maybe it was Barry Diller who controls this company just didn't like him?

MILLS: Well the butler connoted -- it led people to believe that they were the old company. When historically Askjeeves was a question site where you could ask a full question and get answers. They set themselves apart by doing that and people were, when they'd see the butler they'd think that the site hadn't really updated or modernized itself. That it really wasn't competing in as good as the other search sites.

SERWER: All right. So how is it different now? What have they done?

MILLS: They've revamped the whole site. They improved the technology. They have a clean user interface. A very sleek lines and a new logo. They've gotten rid of the butler. They have a customizable toolbox. Very easy to use. Easy to get to search tools like the maps and the encyclopedia search, dictionary and web-based desktop search.

It's all very customizable, very simple and easy to find things on the front page of Ask.com. They've also added mapping capabilities with high-resolution aerial photography and walking directions, things like that that you can do.

SERWER: We mentioned at the top some very big names that it's competing with. Is there really room for all these players in this business?

MILLS: They are doing well. All of them are doing well. Google in the lead, followed by yahoo!, MSN, AOL and now Ask. Google does have 40, 50 percent market share, depending on whose figures you look at. But there is so much money being put into online advertising that they think that they can -- they can actually get their own peace of the pie.

SERWER: Last quick question, is it just my imagination or is Google getting more and more and more commercialized so that more and more sites that it has business links with come to the top rather than pure search?

MILLS: I don't think so. They really have a very good technology to distinguish which are the organic results, which are the most relevant results. They've got the largest index out there. And I think that they do have the sponsored links, most of the other sites have the sponsored links, but they specify clearly which ones those are, are ads. So I think that unless you are not used to using the search engines and can't tell what a sponsored link is, you are going to get the search result you want.

SERWER: All right. Fair enough. We'll have to leave it there. Elinor Mills senior writer from Cnet.com, thank you for coming on the program.

MILLS: Thank you.

SERWER: Still to come on IN THE MONEY. It is time to hear from you as we read some of our e-mails from the past week. You can send us an e-mail right now to INTHEMONEY@CNN.com.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAFFERTY: It says here you know there has to be something wrong with the Internet when even the porn Web sites aren't making enough money. One of those sites says its troubles are all because of search engines like Google. Now it's won a court battle. Web master Allen Wastler is talking about this in his "Inside/Out" segment this week.

ALLEN WASTLER, MONEY.COM: It's one of these little cases that could echo and echo. Have you ever done an image search on Google, Jack?

CAFFERTY: Yes, probably. You mean the pictures?

WASTLER: The pictures. You do it in and you come back with all these little thumbnails that pop up and you know, it's a nice way of doing a quick, easy search. Well, when you do that and you put in different names of different models you get all the different model searches up there. This one outfit called "Perfect 10," they do adult modeling. That's not them here. We just wanted to give you an example.

CAFFERTY: These are the thumbnails.

WASTLER: These are the thumbnails.

SERWER: Who is she?

WASTLER: The people putting up these thumbnails were actually robbing it of potential business. Plus they are starting to sell those to thumbnail pictures to cell phone outfits. You are taking money from us. And a judge out in California agreed.

WESTHOVEN: But they are so tiny. Isn't that how people find what they want by seeing the thumbnail.

WASTLER: On the Google Web site. But you can sell that image and just have it on the cell phone for those guys who like to walk around with their cell phones looking at pictures. CAFFERTY: So if you want a picture of Pamela Anderson on your cell phone ...

WASTLER: And you are paying a cell service for that and that money moves down the chain.

CAFFERTY: In which case, they'll pay you.

WASTLER: So right now "Perfect 10" has an injunction. "Perfect 10" has an injunction. Google can't do this anymore. Other outfits are saying now wait a minute if you can do that with pictures, what about the news headline with the news summary that maybe CNN puts out. And what about the book summary and the book excerpts.

CAFFERTY: There's a whole box being opened.

WASTLER: It can echo all the way down and there's already some suits touching on that with Google. People think there may be others. And think about the money aspect of this. Search is the big thing in advertising right now. If you start limiting the ability of search engines to actually put up these very user-friendly devices like this that could affect how much money is in the search ad market.

CAFFERTY: So my guess is Google will be running off to the appellate court right away?

WASTLER: They are already knocking at the doors saying, please listen to us.

CAFFERTY: What is the "Fun Site of the Week?

WASTLER: It's Oscar time. Time for an Oscar quiz. First one, what was the first movie that won best picture but shot in color?

CAFFERTY: "Gone with the Wind."

WESTHOVEN: Very good, Jack.

CAFFERTY: Just a guess. I had no idea.

SERWER: Who gave him the answers?

WASTLER: OK. What was the last movie shot in black and white to win best picture?

SERWER: "Last Picture Show."

CAFFERTY: What?

SERWER: "Schindler's List."

CAFFERTY: Is he right?

WASTLER: The floor has it.

SERWER: Good Shane. WASTLER: Now everybody has been talking about Hollywood is so liberal. This is an interesting question. How many women have been nominated for best director?

SERWER: Zippo.

WASTLER: Andy says zip. Anybody weigh in?

WESTHOVEN: One.

WASTLER: It's actually three, Sophia Coppola, Jane Campen and Nina Vertmor. I'm sorry.

WESTHOVEN: Who is that?

SERWER: A German director.

WASTLER: 1975, back before they had a foreign film category.

SERWER: Kind of a propaganda movie, shall we say.

WESTHOVEN: Oh, yes.

WASTLER: Anyway there you go a little Oscar test for you.

CAFFERTY: Thanks Allen.

Time now to read your answers to our question of the week. Which is what would it take for you to put away more money for your own medical expenses?

Maureen wrote this, "It took a $6,000 dental bill, not covered by my insurance to get me to sign up for a flexible spending account. People need to understand that health care is not a right, it's a business and everyone should be prepared to pay as much of the bill as they can."

Mark in Virginia brings up another point. "I'd love to sign up for a health savings account if the insurance companies would let me do that. I have a chronic condition that means I get denied by many insurance companies. So instead, I have to go to the state for help instead of paying what I can for health care."

And Claudia wrote this, "Sure, I'll start putting more money away for medical costs. I'll just have to give up on college for my daughter and retirement for me and my husband."

Here's next week's e-mail question of the week. Will recent events make Americans more or less likely to participate in this year's mid-term elections? Send your answers to INTHEMONEY@CNN.com. You should also visit our show page at CNN.com/inthemoney, which is where you'll find our fun sites of the week. Thank you for joining us for this edition of IN THE MONEY.

My thanks to "Headline News" correspondent Jennifer Westhoven, "Fortune" Magazine editor at large Andy Serwer, and Money.com managing editor Allen Wastler.

Hope to see you back here next Saturday at 1:00, Sunday at 3:00 Eastern Times for anther edition of this tidy little program. But until then enjoy the rest of your weekend.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com