Techcrunch has a guest post from Todd Dagres of Spark Capital. In it, he suggests that President Obama should get Steve Jobs to run a joint government bailed-out GM-Chrysler. Though I agree with the overall strategy of the article (firing the current auto execs and streamlining the product line), I don't think Steve Jobs is the best person to actually execute this. His other choices (should Steve not be available), John Chambers or Craig Barrett are somewhat more plausible, though not quite there.

It's a little simplistic to think that Steve can make everything he touches into gold. Though Steve has had great success at Apple and Pixar, the shear size of the auto companies dwarf even those two industry leaders. I think Steve could be a great product strategist for the auto industry, but I think it'll take someone with big industrial operational experience to execute on a new product vision. Maybe it's a tag team effort - Steve leading product development and someone like say, Jack Welch to run operations? I know Nardelli was a GE alum but I don't have much confidence in his ability to lead given his lackluster results at both Home Depot and Chrysler.  Perhaps the master can do better than the student.

Amid all the steroid scandals, I came across this story of uncommon sportsmanship. What a story and a lesson to teach young athletes about the true importance of sports - caring about teammates, respecting your opponents, and building character that will extend beyond the court. Nowadays, talented kids are being plucked out of junior high and groomed to be superstars in college and beyond without ever getting to experience the simple joy of playing a friendly high school game. I'd much rather root for kids like Darius McNeal and Johntel Franklin than spoiled millionaires who cheat or behave badly.

News came out today that GM and Chrysler seek an additional $22 billion in aid from the government. That's in addition to the $17.4 billion already committed. I just can't see throwing good money at a poorly run business. It's one thing to bail out banks because credit markets affect a lot of people. However, bailing out an automaker that continually makes poor decisions and even poorer cars is crazy. As a condition of any bailout money, I would request that all the CEOs and upper management be fired. I applaud what Ford has done in not requesting bailout money. Of the three US auto manufacturers, I'd most likely buy a car from them. Isn't it telling that the car maker that churns out the better products is the one that least needs help?

I'm watching PTI (Pardon the Interruption on ESPN) and one of the segments is about Twitter. The story is that guys like Chris Bosh (http://twitter.com/chrisbosh) and Shaq (http://twitter.com/THE_REAL_SHAQ) actively use Twitter (Bosh has about 2,100 followers, Shaq has over 105,000!). Dan LeBatard and Tony Kornheiser are discussing whether more and more athletes will become active on Twitter. The fact that Twitter was mentioned by a bunch of older dudes on a sports show has demonstrated for me that Twitter now has crossed over to the mainstream. It's like when my mom mentioned that she was "Googling" a while back - that pretty much meant to me that Google had arrived.
 
Back to the show, Dan made a very interesting comment that with services like Twitter, sports reporters are now becoming less and less relevant. If an athlete can connect directly with the fans, do we really need the sports reporter in the locker room with a microphone? I'd say that sports reporters and especially sports journalists are still necessary. What these athletes do with Twitter only shows me what the athlete may be willing to share but that's only part of the story. It takes an investigative reporter or journalist to dig beyond that to uncover more truth or to provide interpretation and insightful commentary. Do you think A-Rod would have confessed to taking roids had a journalist not uncovered it? I think services like Twitter are a nice addition to the sports information stream but by far not the end all.