This post is a response to an article on theglobeandmail.com entitled:

Putting Twitter use in perspective

It is usually those who don't know what they are talking about that call things a "FAD". And time and again, history proves them wrong. This time will be no different.

I work in technology (hence the name) and I first dismissed twitter when I saw my 21 yr old sister sending inane messages like "drank too much coffee" or I'm bored.

But upon deeper review of the site I started to understand the interesting complexities of it and it's intrinsic value in business.

Twitter certainly has it's share of mind numbing drivel, just like every other medium, including Facebook and TV. I don't watch so called Reality TV and I dont follow my sister on Twitter.

I do, however follow Richard Branson, Tech Crunch, Jack Welch, Eben Pagan and Tony Robbins, to name a few.

As experts in their respective fields, they offer valuable, insightful content which would be hard pressed to find myself. They help me find the good stuff in the sea of information that is the Internet. Discerning humans beat even the most complex search algorithm every time.

As someone marketing online services, Twitter is an ideal way of amassing a significant, targeted audience of "followers" that one can present one's message and wares to. It's real time approach has many advantages, not the least of which is instantly informing those you know are interested of with timely messages and updates. It is a unique tool in ones marketing toolbox.

There are many who have neither the time nor the inclination to use Twitter but if you are self employed, sell products or services or work in technology, do not dismiss Twitter so quickly, it is a valuable tool.

And I must admit, building targeted followers you know are interested in your message on Twitter is strangely compelling.

Oh, and just in case you want to, you can follow me on Twitter at:

http://bit.ly/ZgfFe

Renshi Ricketts, Executive Budo

The Greatest Orator

This post is a response to an article on theglobeandmail.com entitled:

Barack Obama is no Ronald Reagan - yet

Although he is the greatest orator of our time, the President is also a student, still learning from the masters

An inspiring, inciteful article. Gave me a new perspective on Ronald Reagan. Obama IS a student, but one, I believe with the capacity and potential to be better than any of those masters.

In time, Obama will likely become every bit the orator Reagan was. But Obama has something Reagan could never have, coming from the era he did. Obama has a far broader, more inclusive idea of what it means to be a good American citizen.

Obama's definition includes gays in committed relationships, single mothers with children, Lesbian couples with adopted kids. Reagan's definition could never include such people given the family values message of the day.

I have confidence Obama will live up to this potential. But as another President noted, if he doesn't, at least he will fail while daring greatly.

Follow Up Post:

I think judging the merits of a President by how much he uses the Teleprompter is shallow and inane.

Perhaps one should focus on the substance of the words on that teleprompter instead.

Obama has already done more to stabilize the world than many Presidents did in their full term. His speech last March on race was moving. His speech in Cairo was masterful and balanced and it laid out very specific policies. His acceptance speech was inclusive and inspiring.

Many people are impatient and unable to see anything but the negative side of everything. I do not give their comments much weight. Obama has made ground breaking, impressive speeches. The fact he used a teleprompter is hardly relevant.

Change never happens overnight and those that think otherwise are not students of history.

The Smart Money

This post is a response to an article on theglobeandmail.com entitled:

Bailing out GM makes it really tough for government to say no to other beggars

The GM bailout is a small part of a deepening problem: the threat of inflation

It was not a particularly good idea to bail out GM but then again, the Government was presented with an offer "they could not refuse".

Come on face it!  It was politically impossible for politicians of the day to say no and just let GM fail.  Whether or not an idea is good or bad, prudent or reckless is rarely the deciding factor in the political arena.  Just look at Harper's GST cut, done completely for political gain with little or no upside to Canada, especially now.

The bail out was simply the lesser of two evils.

Option A: Don't bail them out and hundreds of thousands of direct and indirect jobs would perish.  Countless communities would be in upheaval and some might disappear all together.

Option B: Spend 10's of billions of tax payer dollars and look to be doing something constructive.  Save 100's of thousands of jobs and countless communities.  Sure, piss off some tax payers who are actually following this stuff and leave a monstrous deficit for future leaders to deal with.

Yeah, really tough choice.

Was it wise to bail out GM?  Smart money says no.  Smart money probably would have went to shore up Nortel or other high tech companies.  Investing in Canada's high tech industries and adding to our minuscule R&D efforts would probably have served Canada better than dumping cash into the sink whole that is GM.

But this was never going to be about what was the wiser thing to do.  This was always going to be about politics.  It always is when billions of dollars and thousands of jobs are at stake.

Politicians were never going to do the wise thing, they were going to do the easiest and by that measure, bailing out GM wins hands down.

But don't blame the politicians!  We the people, the self interested ones anyway, would not stand for anything else.