I’m noticing how both US President Barack Obama and Canadian Opposition Leader Michael Ignatieff are facing communications challenges these days. The tougher reality is that while advancing policy initiatives or rebuilding a brand are difficult to begin with, neither politician’s camp is helping their own cause.

Where to begin….

Barack Obama: US Health Care Reform

Many of you are probably aware that Barack Obama is having the carpet pulled out from under him regarding healthcare reform. Aggressive and vitriolic conservative propaganda (surely supported if not funded by the insurance companies who have plenty to lose) have begun convincing Americans that Obama’s plan is to “socialize” heath care, strip choice from each individual and raise taxes. In fact none of these arguments are true, but as much of a fan of his as I am, it must be said that he is doing an incredibly poor job of selling his argument. This is quite odd, given he is the president amongst presidents known for his communications skills, clarity and leveraging mass media techniques; yet his messages on health care reform have been cloudy, convoluted and confusing, easily suppressed and overtaken by a tack-sharp, straight-forward and succinct counter from the Republicans and special interest groups. It is not unexpected then, to witness the debate wandering away from Obama’s focused subject matter and rather alarmingly threatening his early success, approval ratings and possible legacy.

The Republican message has operated on these principles:

- Obama health care will limit the choices Americans have to receive excellent medical service

- In adding coverage for 50 million uninsured Americans, there is no way to pay for this reform other than to raise taxes

- Obama’s publicly funded health care plan is akin to socialism – socialized medicine strips Americans of their very civil liberties and freedom of choice

The Republicans are effectively selling their message point for point with the same predictable tact and efficiency that every American has become accustomed to. Unfortunately, the Democrats, despite holding the House, the Senate and the Presidency, are falling into the same trap of being self-effacing and clumsy. They fail to understand or be convinced of their own message, let alone sell it abroad.

All it would take for Obama to make his point and earn wide-spread support for his reform is to get down to the facts of the matter, clarify his message and essentially fight fire with fire. Steady messages should be forthright and even slightly aggressive:

- Every insured American is being ripped off by for-profit insurance companies

- Uninsured Americans are costing insured Americans even more because they lack coverage but still access medical care

- The government’s only control in this plan is to provide an all-access pass to health care – beyond that, every choice is up to the patient and their doctor

Heck, use keywords and marketing: recovery, solution, escape, relief, cure, freedom, democratic, constitutional… Know your audience. Know your media. Know your opponents. Clarify your message. Determine your talking points. Keep them simple. Keep everyone on message and honest. Defeat line by line your opponents’ arguments. Public relations 101.

Simple messages make for great headlines. Stop using confusing examples, big words and vague and obtrusive arguments. Say it like this: “America: each of you are spending more to receive less. You are being ripped off. I have the solution that will cost you less and get you more. I have a low-cost plan to cure America of its health care needs.” Enough said.

The Democrats have until now been convoluted and uninterpretable – to the extent that they’re tripping over themselves. In less than a week, press secretary Robert Biggs said one thing, which differed from House speaker Nancy Pelosi, which again differed from Obama himself. Seriously? Even supporters of the plan have developed a twitch. Regardless of the quality of the program, if you can’t get your facts straight, how can anyone trust you to deliver?

The fact of the matter is that when both sides of any argument are equally prepared and able to present their case, the more appreciable party or subject line should win every time. And this is what confounds me every time Republicans win anything. If Americans have been convinced to support Republicans on anything – from state propositions to presidents – it is because either a) the Republicans do a better job of selling their argument, or b) Americans actually choose the Republican message. I have a hard time believing the latter – that a majority of Americans are conservative. Sure there are certain states, but not the whole country. Thus, when they get spanked by someone like George W. Bush, the Democrats should take that as a literal slap in the face. It’s punishment for having incompetently presented a viable alternative.

Time and time again, we here in Canada have watched the Democrats defeat themselves by falling into Republican traps – whether it was the John Kerry Vietnam Swift Boat scandal (which was entirely irrelevant to the election, but deflected the argument away from Bush’s disastrous foreign policy, failed domestic programs and hugely wasteful spending) or this, Obama’s “Death Camp” health care reform. Frankly, the Republicans shouldn’t have a leg to stand on, but they seem to be immensely more talented, voracious, and skilled debaters. I can only imagine how refined they are behind the scenes at selling their points to the media and to interest groups.

Michael Ignatieff: His Brand And That Of His Party

The growing problem Canadian Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff is facing is emblematic of the American president’s. While a majority of Canadians support Ignatieff’s sound character and liberal ideology, his efforts to establish himself and garner support for his renewed party are starting to be deflected or otherwise contradicted by his opposition. Accordingly, Canadians are becoming confused by what is being presented to them.

In Ignatieff’s case, we’re talking about his image and reputation (his brand) and the legitimization of the revamped Liberal Party. The Liberals are for some reason or another allowing the governing Conservatives complete opportunity to pounce on their leader’s image and that of his party. Here we have a very capable person and party with moderate and responsible views, yet Conservative arguments reduce both Ignatieff and the Liberals down to staunch aristocratic attitudes and vague (and therefore untrustworthy) policies.

While it is to be expected that the Conservative attack plan would be to strike fear into people thinking of voting Liberal, what is odd is that the Liberals themselves are doing little to counter the argument. And as long as the debate lingers, voters start to legitimize and rationalize Conservative attacks. The portrayals begin to stick. This is what makes otherwise unappetizing attack ads successful: they hold no bearing unless the receiving party does nothing to refute them. If an attack remains undefended, even on grounds of legitimacy, at least some of the intended damage is done. Thus, when an election comes around, the argument becomes, for example, less about recession spending, employment insurance and corporate tax breaks, and more about rebuking the caricature the Conservatives have created regarding Ignatieff.

Because conservatives (Republicans) operate from a “status quo” platform and liberals (or Democrats) operate from an “ideas” platform, the conservatives have a distinct advantage when discussing policy or change, because their argument is “why.” To their advantage is the familiar. While liberals must argue why change is good or necessary, all conservatives have to do is refer to what is known and what is working. When that isn’t enough, they escalate to why liberal ideas won’t work as promised or aren’t sound or sufficient in the first place. Inherently, the foundation of conservative thinking is lowest-common-denominator and status quo. By their nature they are satisfied with less – less control, less change, less interference. Liberal thinking is about progression, change and development. Therefore, the natural conservative response to a liberal plan exudes a fear of the unknown. And they prey upon these subconscious characteristics in every voter.

What both Michael Ignatieff and Barack Obama would benefit from immediately, is getting back down to basics with voters. They ought to clarify their message, deflect any unnecessary tangents and define the arguments that will achieve success. Now that both men have traveled a fair distance down a road of disrepair (thanks to their opposition), they need to take the extra steps of bringing their voter base back to an open-minded equilibrium. This might mean direct contact – town halls – since speaking to people are strengths of both men. Obama is already doing this to a limited extent, but I’m talking campaign-style and in hostile territory. They need to get their message across (unadulterated) and generate two-way conversations with voters. Hear what they have to say. This will get people talking about them and telling their friends about them.

Once they’re back on a level playing field with voters, all it really comes down to is ensuring their arguments make sense, are succinct and satisfy a need. Reality and the common voter favor moderate and centrist politicians. Only in allowing the debate to shift away from legitimate topics can conservative groups win, yet it happens far more often than it should.

Here is Michael Ignatieff‘s response to the Conservative party attack ads:

I recently uploaded some pictures to my online photo gallery from my latest volunteer gig – Thursday evening’s Liberal Party fundraising event featuring Hon. Justin Trudeau, Liberal MP for Papineau in Quebec. Justin Trudeau, as you may know, is the eldest son of the late Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, and holds the hopes of many Trudeau-ites and Liberals that he will be the second coming.

Justin Trudeau is a very charming man. He is eloquent in his mannerisms, humble and gracious amongst supporters. It appears he likes watches too, as he was sporting an IWC Schaffhausen Regulateur at the event – an aficionado’s watch to say the least.

I wonder aloud, though, what he feels each time someone shakes his hand and says how much they admired his father. Fact is, while there is a significant benefit to his political career that he is a Trudeau, there must also be considerable pressure from his supporters and the Liberal faithful for him to follow in his footsteps, and an expectation, however modest, that he be his father in many respects. I suppose it comes with the territory.

The event was a good one, attended by approximately 100 people. Trudeau spoke passionately, capturing peoples’ attention and interest in very much the same way he did when he spoke at the marketing conference I attended back in November. The fundraising effort was for delegates fees for the upcoming convention which I’ve spoken about, which I do not believe I will be attending, due to the financial commitment. A thousand dollars plus personal expenses is quite a commitment, today or any other, and one that I can’t justify putting towards something unrelated to the needs and interests of my home and family.

After being a part of Michael Ignatieff‘s visit to Calgary a few weeks ago, and having just participated in Justin Trudeau’s visit, I have come to the conclusion that there needs to be a much greater effort put forward by the communications, public relations and marketing departments of the Liberal Parties of Canada and Alberta. See, Justin Trudeau was here for a full day last week – at a local high school, at the fundraiser and at other events, but I came across no mention of his visit on any radio shows or in the national newspapers either before hand or after. One would think there could be a great deal of value in sharing with Canadians (and specifically Calgarians) that these high-profile politicians are in our Conservative-stronghold city and province and are making efforts to garner support. Otherwise, what would be the point of making this stop? The 100 people at the fundraiser are likely going to vote Liberal, whether these gents come to see them or not. On the provincial side, I just completed a “rebuilding” survey, which asked various questions like, “what are we doing well,” “what are we not doing well,” “what are our opportunities,” etc. The provincial Liberals, led by Dr. David Swann, have a huge opportunity to pick up on failing impressions of the Conservative party but are lacking in brand awareness. They too are not getting much exposure, because in part, I don’t think they’re effectively selling their argument to voters, nor their messages to the media. For both groups, I would like to know what prevents greater awareness from taking place, what media are picking up on their visits, and how the party is measuring success.

On another note, I was introduced to Moo Cards by a colleague on Friday, and I must say, for a quick and easy one-stop shop for personal business cards, these seem to be just the fit. They’re British, and can take any ready-made graphic or your own photos on one side, and a good amount of personal information on the other. Several formats and sizes are available. I’m getting some made for my photography, so I can invite people to this blog and to my photo gallery when I meet them abroad (especially at photo shoots).

I let the cat out of the bag Monday evening – filling in my few Twitter followers on what I was up to earlier that day, and what my mysterious and first-ever photo shoot was all about.

Limited photos are on a new gallery on my online photo website for you to enjoy (more will be added in coming days).

So what was the deal? Last week, I was asked by the office of Michael Ignatieff (leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, and also the leader of the Official Opposition for the Government of Canada) to volunteer to ride along and take pictures throughout his one-day visit to Calgary. This day, as I would find out, included a number of events at several locales within the downtown area. I was asked to participate after a few of his Alberta organizers saw my photos from the last time he was in Calgary, who thought I was a great combination of free and talented enough. Needless to say, I was flattered. I did, however, make it abundantly clear that I was not a professional and had never done a shoot before (let alone a touring or photojournalistic one).

Monday began in the late morning at the Calgary Petroleum Club. Michael was an invited guest at a closed-door lunch with 20 of Calgary’s top oil industry CEOs and presidents – an incomparably powerful group. This lunch was, in my opinion, a coup. Here were Canada’s most influential corporate and industry power players (aside from the banks) enjoying an engaging session with a leader whose party has been admonished by precisely this community. Were we seeing the beginnings of a paradigm shift? One can only hope that this will eventually lead to leftward movement in Alberta’s political prejudices.

After the Petroleum Club successfully delivered a three-course lunch in just over an hour (bravo!), we quickly departed for Western Canada high school, where Michael entered a town hall event featuring 250 students from Western’s bilingual social studies programs. There, he delivered a ten minute speech and took engaging questions in English and in French from students. Afterwards, he mingled, shook hands and took pictures with every student who asked. Media were invited and were everywhere. I recognized the photographer for Reuters, Canadian Press and the Calgary Herald. Ignatieff was then rushed into a connecting room that had been set up for a media scrum. This visit was Michael’s third to Calgary since the new year, but his first media availability. Local reporters predictably asked half-assed questions, including if he was a dreamer thinking he might get a Liberal elected in Alberta. He replied with expected party messages, but also called out reporters, telling them the students had asked better questions.

From Western, we headed back downtown to the headquarters of the Calgary Police Service. We were met by Ontario Liberal MP Mark Holland, who serves as Public Safety critic, and a wonderful Calgary police officer who recently moved from Liverpool (Calgary initiated an enormous recruiting program in Britain two years ago when local and even Canadian prospects were scarce). He escorted us to a secured floor and boardroom where Calgary Police Chief Rick Hanson was waiting with his senior staff and specialists. They gave a presentation to Michael and Mark about Calgary’s ongoing battle against gang violence and organized crime. Michael was shown several seized weapons, including assault rifles and silencers by a senior firearms expert.

After the meeting, we were escorted into an adjacent building for a tour of the police service’s criminal processing and holding facilities, including their CSI set-up. No photos were allowed on the tour (in fact, my lens cap had to be on at all times). Upon completing the tour, Michael took the C-Train (Calgary’s light rail transit system) a block up to his hotel, followed by an hour of down time.

After I devoured a quick and early dinner at a nearby restaurant, I went to the Grand Theatre, which that evening played host to a party fundraiser. About 200 people attended, and he spoke passionately about capturing and focusing the renewed energy of supporters towards winning the next election.

For this assignment  I rented a Canon 50mm F1.2 L lens, which was very nice, but my experience left me a detractor of its focal length. Too narrow. I think if I were purchasing a fast prime, I’d gravitate more towards the 35mm F1.4 L. At 21 megapixels I have a great opportunity to crop in on wide shots, but the reverse isn’t true on tight shots. Another thing I learned is that I need a flash. While F1.2, 1.4 and the like are lovely apertures, depth of field is a real bugger, and balancing tricky light situations without flash is challenging. I pulled it off in most situations, but I would have loved to have been working with greater depths of field.

It was a great day. My legs, feet and even my toes are still sore, but it was a wonderful experience for which I am very grateful. I learned a lot, including how difficult a photographic assignment can be. I hope to be able to do this again.

A quick update for everyone. It’s been a busy week, one filled with returning from a hectic Vancouver Playhouse International Wine Festival to nursing my sick wife, subsequently battling my own cold, having a mid-term due Sunday and being asked to step way out of my shell and do a photo shoot this coming Monday. All the while putting to bed my most challenging magazine edition of the year during work hours.

Vancouver was fun, however it was more tiring this time around. I participated in probably a few too many late nights and enjoyed myself a little too much with colleagues who I’m getting to know better each year. That’s the battle that happens, I suppose, when you develop friendships with like-minded people from all over the world who you only see once or twice a year. Somewhere in the mix I’m getting older too, though apparently none the wiser.

The Junos were taking place in Vancouver on the same weekend as Playhouse this year. Long-time readers will recall that I experienced a great deal of Junos action in Calgary last year, and I was drawn back into all the drama and TMZ-style celebrity sightings again this year in Vancouver. As we ate breakfast each morning at the Fairmont Waterfront, we saw K-OS and a few times we saw Jim Cuddy. A post-tasting dinner in the lounge had us sitting next to 2008 and 2009 Junos host, comedian Russell Peters. Pretty cool.

I’m theoretically supposed to be in Vancouver again at the end of the month. April 30 is the Liberal Party of Canada convention, where Michael Ignatieff is going to be validated as leader of the party. This time, unlike 2006, some no-name is absolutely not going to sneak up the middle, steal the nomination and ruin the Liberal brand for the following few years. I say theoretically because the only thing in the way of my attendance is the $1000 hit at the door. That’s a hefty price tag for anybody, especially these days. I’m working to see if I can access funds from the party to help get me there, and if all else fails, perhaps ask for some modest donations from family or friends. It’s 75% tax deductible, though those apply to 2009 taxes of course. :-/

My PR and Publicity certificate is proceeding nicely. The textbook for the first course is fantastic – a great introduction to the concepts, premise and fundamentals. Similarly, doing a course online for something such as public relations makes a lot of sense – as a class we’re exploring digital and social media almost accidentally while learning and discussing course material amongst ourselves from all corners of the country and beyond. And within the context of an online course, we’re delivering our arguments to each other in concise, motivating and persuasive ways, which is, in its essence, PR.

In other news, I’ve been Twittering regularly – though I’m not sure who cares (I know I barely do), and I’ve also recently boosted my presence on LinkedIn. I’m beginning to wrap my head around the relevance of these social networks. Look me up if you want; I’d be happy to add you to my contacts.

I won’t get into the photo shoot that I alluded to earlier. Sorry to be a tease. Some of you already know what’s going on, but for the sake of superstition I will wait until it is over before I share too many details. That, and I’ve actually been told not to say much until it is done.

Have a great weekend everyone.

I was busy being politically involved this weekend. Thursday, I visited the Calgary aero-space museum for a hastily-organized  gathering of active Liberal members with a visit from Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff. About 150 of us spent an hour at this event, and I was able to bang off some good pictures of the leader and some members. I was asked by several organizers to send them my best shots for potential use on websites and media. Cool. Spontaneous photojournalism. A few of my better shots are now on my gallery website for your viewing pleasure.

On Friday, I put in a 3/4 work day and then drove up to Edmonton in the afternoon to attend a Liberal Party of Canada in Alberta convention, featuring a Friday-night dinner for, you guessed it, Michael Ignatieff. The dinner attracted a very large audience – reported to be 800 strong – which is very impressive for a Liberal event in Alberta. Other dignitaries at the dinner included Dr. David Swann, Alberta Liberal Party leader and former doctor of Doctors Without Borders, as well as senators and organizers.

Michael Ignatieff’s impressions upon me continue to grow. His oratory skills are superb. He speaks clearly and parlays his messages in very plain terms – exhibiting a sincere belief and understanding of them. His timing is impeccable. His speeches are passionate and deliberate, building up the crowd and also giving them time to pause and think. But the content of his speeches are as entirely wonderful as how he presents them. His arguments make sense. They are rational and sincere. There are no hollow thoughts safely delivered to a predictable audience, nor loose ends, empty promises or rousing hyperbole. And as I discussed with my table and his personal assistant at the hotel lounge afterwards, what he said to his audience in Edmonton backs up and gives reason to what we read and have heard in the media and is the exact same message he’ll deliver in Quebec, Nova Scotia and British Columbia. He’s not trying to convince us of one thing and then a different region of another. His arguments are planned, uniform and are national in scope despite having very localized meaning.

Michael Ignatieff is not just a good politician; he is a good person and he is very sharp, articulate, learned and intelligent. These are the kinds of strengths that every politician wants in their arsenal, but aren’t often realized in politics. They are shaped and honed from a life outside of politics; a life spent thinking critically, writing numerous texts and novels, and teaching at schools like Harvard.

Sadly, most politicians (including Justin Trudeau, whose full potential I fear for for these reasons) are groomed for a life in politics from a very early age, and the basis of the behaviors they learn is how to carefully tread water with very little reality imparted on their reason and character.

Some of the strongest messages from both of Michael’s speeches and the foundational meaning behind them, are as follows:

- the Liberals will run candidates in every riding in Canada in the next election

- Michael is visiting and has visited nearly every populated centre in Canada only two months into the job

- He is especially dignifying the West (western provinces such as BC, Alberta and Saskatchewan) and bringing light, sympathy and attention to not only western arguments, but taking an objective, careful and occasionally uncharacteristically western stance on some of them as well

- Michael dignifies the existence and significance of Alberta’s oilsands, but reinforces a middle ground in that we must act responsibly and tactfully yet recognize their national economic impact

- he challenges the conservative methodology behind negative PR and character assassination, and their deliberate divisiveness, lack of transparency and inability to think or plan long-term on behalf of Canadians

Michael’s reasoning behind these messages stem from a central belief in national unity and pure ideology in terms of the role and responsibility of government. His resolve is that the Liberals are a national party and that any governing party ought to represent the interests of the entire nation, not just urban centers or specific, vote-rich provinces. His arguments are in deference to any other party – his success will not depend on bringing down his counterparts in other parties, because they are arguments that fight on real terms for all to see. He wants Canadians to vote for ideas, not in the name of fear. Sound familiar?

The thing about Michael Ignatieff is that he is not so shallow as to simply spin successful arguments from south of the border. His arguments are concentrated, deep and sound. They reflect critical thought emanating a very thoughtful person, and make him a very easy person to vote for and elect. It is little wonder that the Conservatives are taking their time to see where they can attack from, and what foibles they can latch on to. Because Stephen Harper does not campaign on what he stands for – that much has been proven several times in the last few years. Stephen Harper has previously campaigned on how poor Canadians’ alternatives are and why he is the only sensible choice, however these days I feel a wind of change on our horizon, and it’s not simply another southern Alberta chinook.

We just returned from an impromptu Christmas vacation in Lake Louise, a beautiful mountain town 2 hours from Calgary, and a half-hour west of Banff. It was a nice vacation – the hotel was mostly up to standards, the weather was predictably winterish but pleasant and we had a lot of fun bundling up and traversing the frozen lake, amongst other activities.

December became the most vacation-related travel month yet, with 16 days spent away from home. It will be nice to plant ourselves for a few weeks, before heading to Phoenix for a week to celebrate my wife’s big 3-0 in February.

In other news, I’ve registered to run for a delegate spot in support of Michael Ignatieff in the upcoming federal Liberal convention, which will be held in Vancouver in May. These are exciting times, and I feel a calling to contribute to the positive change and restoration that we see the federal Liberals undergoing, not to mention a potential for renewal in Canadian politics in general. There are more changes afoot in this part of my life, and once some are set in motion, I’ll be sure to post about them.

The last ten days in Canadian politics have been very interesting, and coupled with continuing trends in the economy, have been concerning as well.

I’m thrilled to hear that Michael Ignatieff is now leader of the federal Liberal party. I think Ignatieff (I won’t call him Iggy – that’s reserved for Calgary’s favorite hockey player) has brought renewed credibility to the Liberals and poses a worthy and hopefully insurmountable challenge to Stephen Harper (begrudgingly, still our Prime Minister). At the very least, he, along with what I believe will become an unsuccessful and soon extinct coalition, have spiced up Canadian politics. More Canadians are talking about politics, and love Ignatieff or hate him, Stephen Harper will be forced to put some effort into his party’s agenda to effectively sway voters due to the bolstered and more effective opposition. These are exciting times. We have a celebrated thinker leading the opposition, and a ruthless and (I will credit him) crafty Prime Minister ready to duke it out, with hardened support behind each of them. I predict we will finally have some worthy debate now that we appear to have worthy combatants, and I foresee brighter days and greater results from government and higher voter turnouts in future elections.

I also predict that with Michael Ignatieff’s ascension the final nail has been driven into the coffin of Stephen Harper’s aspirational majority government. Furthermore, it is my belief that Harper will be forever remembered as a leader who struggled mightily to gain a majority, legislated as though he already had one, much to his demise, and spent much of his retirement second guessing his actions while in power. The book that will follow his departure will undoubtedly say as much. Poor Stevey.

All this said, Michael, where have you been? The Liberal Party ought to have gotten on with your nomination two years ago when you were poised to become leader the first time. I was a staunch supporter of Ignatieff’s leading up to the 2006 Liberal leadership convention and I saw something that has obviously taken two years for the rest of the party faithful to realize – that this guy is special and worth backing. The last two years with this forever ambiguous Dion fellow has been a waste of time: disengaging voters, mobilizing the right, disenfranchising the left, giving Harper a free ride (which he squandered), bewildering the international community and costing Canadian tax payers hundreds of millions of dollars.

While our parliament is on extended Christmas vacation, very real issues continue to fester. I’m very concerned about the decisions being made by government, in particular with regards to bailing out the auto sector. Now, I am sorry if my stance is lacking in sympathy, but I’m not employed by the auto industry, nor is anyone I know, so my emotional ties are rather distant and I am at best apathetic.

It simply doesn’t make sense to me that we should, for any reason, save floundering businesses no matter their size. It is the nature of capitalism that businesses operate self-reliantly, understanding the risks involved and conducting themselves accordingly. It is a slippery slope that we invite businesses to beg for handouts when their business plans have failed and they’ve run out of their own money to lose. As I mentioned to my friend Davin last weekend, what’s next? Will we bail out Petro Canada or Exxon when they come calling once our culture has shifted to renewable fuels and their blindness puts another 100,000 employees at risk of being laid off? Then only a few days ago, this article is published in the Globe and Mail, mentioning how mining and forestry are being considered for tax payers’ dollars, which poignantly emphasizes my argument. Archaic industries and poor business practices getting in line because times are tough. How do we as a responsible and forward thinking society progress if we are constantly propping up shortsightedness and poor planning?

In the late 90′s Canada’s Nortel Networks traded at $124 a share on the NYSE, and, considered a catastrophic example of the internet bubble burst, now trades below a dollar a share and was warned this week that they would be delisted if they didn’t pick themselves up. They’ve laid off 60,000 workers in the last 8 years. Where was their bailout?

We return from the coast tomorrow evening. It’s straight to dinner with my team to celebrate the holidays. To you and yours, best of the season, be safe and cheers.