My issue is that originally (as I remember it), it was to be “three things <the subject> would do to help the state”. For instance, if you had Carl Levin on the show, it would be “Three things that I, Carl Levin, would do to improve the state”. Fine.

But what it seemed to become was “Three things that <the subject> thinks that the people of Michigan should do to improve the state”. For instance, still using Carl Levin, it would be Levin listing three things that he thinks the people of Michigan should all do to improve the state.

Anyway, thanks again.

The second topic is the conduct of this “Three Things” series. Since it is sub-titled “How Would YOU fix Michigan?” I first saw it as asking the interviewee and/or commenter a personal question. To that end I quickly noticed that the politicians in particular (including the school principal) didn't offer much in the way of personal commitments. In fact, the total score of “we” oriented responses was just 50% (9 of 18 “things”). In their defense, the interviewer usually framed the questions in the nature of 'what would the people of Michigan' do – or words to that effect; substantially different than the above sub-title.
Only Rick DeVos was inclusive enough to claim 3 “we's” while Jeff Daniels appears to be living faithfully to his suggestions in spite of his third person frame of reference in his comments.
Honestly, we don't need platitudes and stump speeches from politicians, enough already!
Thank you, Michigan Radio for your attempts at a good program concept and thank you, Jeff Daniels for living your beliefs and suggestions and thank you, Mr. DeVos for thinking as a citizen and putting yourself as a member of the population with good suggestions.

Then it morphed into “Three things 'we' can do to improve the state”.

So it went from something possibly interesting but probably useless to something certainly boring and definitely ridiculous.

As soon as I heard somebody say “help your neighbor” I turned the station and new this idea had nothing to offer.

The governors first suggestion has the longest time frame with “get an education” Michigan for too long was able to produce jobs with good wages and benefits and little education. The next one was Mr Daniels – buy local – a very tangible, short term and high impact approach.

Mr Bishops reach out and help your neighbor rang true. Given the current economic climate it is very likely a neighbor, a friend, someone in your family is without a job or income. These are all helpful but for the state to succeed again we need to be honest with ourselves and face the situation exactly as it is.

The state became successful due to natural resources and geography. That still holds true today so we have to understand and leverage those strengths. An additional strength – our skills; workers, engineers, scientists and so forth, overcome our weaknesses – primarily an under educated workforce that is perceived as being out of step with the current business environment. Then we have to understand the opportunities our strengths create and overcome the market threats. Michigan is on its way to becoming a low wage state and that will not support the kinds of change we need nor our first class university system.

Finally we have to take responsibility for our actions for too long we have been in denial and looked to big business or big government to solve our problems, create our jobs and take care of us. We have to become self sufficient and and help each other. There is a place for government and big business – to help deliver an environment that attracts both people and business.