It’s safe to say that this blog post lead me down a path of extremes. My first name lead me to the list of “L” countries, which, for me, began with Luxembourg. As a student of the financial services industry, Luxembourg is a well-known country which might as well be referred to as Candy Land. For years, Europeans took advantage of Luxemburg’s privacy laws, which ultimately, may have caused many people to set money aside, quietly.

But, no one in Luxembourg is talking, so I moved on to my family name, which begins with “M.” Mexico was tempting (I love the country) but, instead, I chose Myanmar, also known as Burma. Quite a shift – I have read many stories about the struggles in Burma. In my last job, I was also repsonsible for guiding my companies position regarding countries that were facing significant politcal and social strife. Burma was always at the top of the list. We received mail from all four corners of the earth asking us to leave the country in a form of protest of the human rights violations that have been taking place there. It was a constant source of conversation with senior management and our Board.

And, this was our position: we can not leave Burma nor can we implement business decisions that would prevent development in Burma because doing so would prevent the rest of the world from traveling to Burma and seeing what is going on.

In general, people hated this position. Why not use our clout to promote change with the government? Well, clout is a funny thing. You can only use it if you really have it. And often, American companies doing business outside the United States see themselves differently than other countries see them.

I went through a stage when I was continuously disappointed by companies that seemed to turn a blind eye to important topics. But, then I realized that, despite the shareholder value, most companies are limited in what they can achieve with governments with whom they have interaction. It’s not their fault, it’s just the truth. And while I always hope for more versus less, I do see now that sometimes, you just can’t get there from here…..

Wikipedia has become an primary resource. Last week, I was visiting people on Capitol Hill and started chatting with new legislative staff working for a Congressman from New York. The more senior of the two had been assigned a new issue. I asked him about research and he said – with a smile – that he would start with Wikipedia.

Wow. With all of the resources available to Congressional staff, including the Congressional Research Service, it’s amazing to me that Wikpedia is the first stop. But, in truth, it’s much easier. In order to receive information from the CRS, you need to submit a formal request and explain why the information is needed: to prepare for a hearing or a Congressional vote or to draft legislation. Based on what I have observed, most requests are submitted to CRS in anticipation of legislation.

Nonetheless, the process takes time and Wikepedia provides answers to questions with one simple click. Even complicated policy issues like the War in Iraq have a Wikipedia page.

This week, I used Wikiscanner to learn more about Under Armour, a Baltimore, Maryland-based athletic apparel company. I love the Under Armour brand and I am excited that it’s a local company. To date, 52 different IPO addresses have edited the Under Armour pages, 14 of which belong to the UA corporate headquarters.

Base on the discussion tab, people are disputing one of Under Armour’s claims to fame: the development of material that wicks away sweat during physical activity. According to the UA camp, the company can claim development of this important fabric. But, many claim that Nike is actually the original source of wicking material. And, one lone soul credits Reebok for the innovation.

In a separate discussion, several people have expressed dissatisfaction with the spelling of Under Armour. In general, they just think it’s goofy with the”u.” Finally, there were several discussions about other language the company uses to describe the features and benefit, which leads me to believe the marketers must have used some terminology, like “compression,” that might be tipping the scale away from credibility.

The Under Armour vs. Nike sentiment seems to be running high at both companies. Recently, Ad Age suggested that Nike’s “Better” advertising was better than Under Armour’s “better” campaign. He concluded the article by suggesting that the Under Armour audience is “angry” and cultish. And, according to him, being cultish is a bad thing.

In general, my friends and colleagues consider Apple to be among the most – if not the most – innovative companies in the world, able to see and create trends long before anyone else. Here’s something I’d like them to consider: designing a stand-up desk for my PowerBook.

I want something stylish and, if possible, portable. I am spending a lot more time on my computer and, as a result, a lot more time sitting down. Most of my friends work in public relations or advocacy. A small group of us were together last week and we concluded that over 10 years in PR amounts to more than an extra 10 pounds!

Sitting – thinking – writing – typing – eating and coffee drinking: it all ads up. Lets keep social media tipping the scales – but in a good way.

The champagne bottles must be popping in San Francisco tonight as the Visa, USA clan celebrates the company’s stock offering. By most measures, the stock offering exceeded expectations. Some online reporters have remarked that today’s close of almost $60 is $20 higher than even the most enthusiastic estimates.

This is an interesting chapter is Visa’s history. Not long ago, the company was being investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice for anti-competitive business practices. My how far they’ve come…

For most of its life, the Visa organization was technically an “association” of financial companies, which paid a membership fee to Visa – and in many cases MasterCard – to build and maintain the “pipes in the ground” that make up part of the credit card industry’s payment network. In other words, Visa does not – and has never – issued cards. They have helped banks, which keep the credit card accounts on their books, process the transactions on behalf of consumers and the outlets that accept the cards.

Visa attracted unwanted attention from the DOJ in the late 1990s because of its Board structure and by-laws that prevented member institutions from doing business with competing payments systems a.k.a. American Express and Discover. As a result, the DOJ contended, the payments industry and consumers suffered.

It was a long legal battle, but, in the end, the DOJ prevailed and the associations were forced to make changes. MasterCard became a public company first. Today, Visa followed – in a big way.

So, what’s in store for consumers now? Will this development make our lives any better? Maybe some of the money will go to improving the expansive network further so the company will – in fact – be “everywhere” we want to be. Maybe, the, money will go to new technology that will make electronic payments even easier going forward. Maybe, the cash infusion will enable the company to reduce it’s merchant fees, which continues to be a source of agitation. Only time will tell, but there is one thing we know for sure: today’s IPO was a resounding success.

Remember Trans Europe Express? They had some big hits in the 1980s, including a song with the refrain “”Wiki, wiki, wiki, wiki.” Too bad they were not around long enough to enjoy the fruits of their labor….

Lets talk about wikis, who should contribute to them and what is the best way to manage mass collaboration. It’s not easy. Quite frankly, I have been impressed with the knowledge of many wiki contributors. They get it. And, they seem to research their topics before committing to the Web.

Having said that, I would never – ever – rely on a wiki as a primary source of information. I would never reference a wiki, base a thesis on a wiki, or overstate the information obtained through a wiki. I blame my legal training. But, it is important to know that the source of important information is an expert. Life is complicated and the decisions we make rest on the facts. The Web 2.o has opened a world of possibilities with regard to having access to information. During the past few months, I’ve been in wiki mode. But, I haven’t found information that is not otherwise available as a primary source.

I don’t think wikis should be exclusive to experts. If that were the case, they would become a redundant source of information. But, maybe they should include an attribution. I’m not trying to contact the wiki authors, but, if history is any guide, asking people to verify their claims is one way to en sure that you receive the highest level quality work. In turn, we would establish a solid floor for wikis, and, people like me, that will still seek the primary reference, can at least feel like they are at a more solid starting point.

I’m sure there is an outstanding quote – somewhere out there – that would illustrate what I’d like to say, beautifully. How about, “There are two sides to ever coin.” The attribution escapes me, but these are words to live by for someone that considers himself or herself a communicator. Several weeks ago, I blogged on Search, John Battelle’s book on Google and how the company (and its rivals) redefined the world of business.

How should we think about search? As the consumer, search is liberating. You simply don’t have to be bothered with anything you don’t want to be bothered with. Through the power of search, you can go directly to those things that are of most interest and find opinions that resemble yours. As the owner of search, Google for example, you own perhaps the most powerful culmination of human thought ever available. Everything we care about and think about is part of our search. And, while we may thing of certain items as predominate and others as experimental, to Google and other search engines, it’s all the same. If you search for one item because you are an expert in the filed and it occupies a large part of your professional time, it does not ignore the other items, small and perhaps contradictory, of the primary interest areas.

Several weeks ago, I wrote a post called “To Lie or not to Lie.” At the time, I was thinking a lot about search and whether consumers should experiment on the Internet to protect their privacy. The idea was straight forward: if consumers could get onto the habit of breaking their patterns, no one could make assumptions about them as a result of search. For me, that would mean visiting site I normally don’t visit. Maybe the short movie site, Nice Shorts, or maybe a NASCAR blog, or maybe an ode to classical music that was rejected by previous generations because of its religious references. Put differently, should I search for things I don’t care about as often as I search for things I do care about – to protect my privacy? Any thoughts?

How often have you been out to dinner with a good friend and an obscure topic comes up and your bud, who you thought you knew everything about, reveals himself to be an expert on the subject. You settle back in your chair and listen as he talks about the topic in such detail that you wonder if he is living a secret life.

People are amazing. It’s not the obvious things that make life interesting; it’s the items that are more obscure. Several weeks ago, I blogged about Chris Anderson’s The Long Tail. It’s a great book about how technology will create an infinite number of micro trends or markets that, taken as a whole, will be a driving economic force in the years to come. I’m over simplifying a great read, but the point is well taken: now, it’s ok to think small, as well as big.

When I first read Tail, my primary question was driven by the concept of economic constraint. Assuming that we are all as complex (and wonderful) as the friend described above – the quiet expert – how do we weigh our “macro” interests versus our “micro” interests? Anderson makes the point that the tail is basically infinite because all of us are now able to pursue our micro interests through the power of the Internet. But, what happens if we have to choose? Most economic theories assume that consumers are constrained by limited resources. Would this blunt the tail?

Maybe this is too far down in the weeds. Perhaps the real beauty of the Internet is that you can change you exploration and intentions instantly, satisfying both your greatest or smallest need.

Disintermediation has been a hot topic in several industries over the years. Often the discussion is tied to the emergence of a new technology that makes a job function obsolete. Will blogging disintermediate corporate affairs representatives?

In January, I blogged about Naked Conversations, a book which I generally enjoyed. For someone that is new to the power of the Internet and Web 2.0, I felt like it was a good guide to the future.

But, Chapter 7, survival of the publicists, struck me as a bit harsh. Here is a basic premise: corporate public affairs representatives are awful people who hide information from external audiences seeking the truth. These people use bad language – that doesn’t make sense – they highlight information that no on cares about – they prevent the outside world from getting in contact with the real experts. Pretty tough stuff.

I think Public Relations people deserve a break. We are talking about a group of people that got into the business because they believe that it is important to provide information to stakeholders in a clear and concise fashion, not to hide the dirty corporate secrets from the world. And, many corporate affairs people have done a good job, one that the scientist or accountant or engineer might not do because he or she is not particularly concerned with the expression of an idea.

We all have or skills sets and our talents. And while I know that corporate structures have been criticized for their layers and isolated functions, some of them do exist for good reasons without sinister intent.

I have been working in corporate America for 15 years. My boss was responsible for public affairs, internal communications, government relations and corporate philanthropy. He has been in this job for over 25 years. Before that, he was a professor of English and history. He writes beautifully, finding the perfect word for every occasion. He was also a gifted storyteller, which I believe is consistent with all of his other strengths. He made an enormous contribution to the company, his colleagues, our department and our customers in both the consumer and business environments and I hate the idea that the nature of his contribution would be completely discounted as a result of new technology and the perception that he is nothing more than a corporate cock-blocker.

The first Chapter of We the Media includes a glimpse of the history of media, both mainstream and social. At times, I had to laugh because of the references to people who took ordinary steps, trying to figure out an aspect of technology, and the results for us is extraordinary.

It was worth the second read. What I missed the first time around was their discussion of September 11th, 2001, and how the event filled people with passion, grief, hate and a series of other emotions, which drove people to the Internet.

I spend a lot of time thinking about September 11th. Unfortunately, I was there. September 11th was my first day back at work after my first vacation in three years. I remember walking through the main level of the Trade Center and across the skywalk that connected our corporate headquarters, WFC 3, to the Twin Towers. Everyone looked relaxed that morning. Some days, everyone looked intense or stressed or late. But, that morning, there was a light-hearted feeling in the air.

I was in my office, computer on and coffee in hand by 7:15 am. There were almost 1000 new email messages in my inbox and I had my day planned around how many I could get through in the next 90 minutes. I was proud of my pace and was growing increasingly confident that nothing terrible had happened during my vacation and then, there was this hollow sound – so intense, so powerful – so unusual. I left my office immediately looking for an explanation and as I approached the main hallway that connected the North Side of our floor to the South Side, I woman ran towards me, shoeless. She opened the doors that lead to the elevators on the 50th floor and yelled back, “A plane just hit the Trade Center.” The doors closed and I was alone.

It seems like seconds later I was in the elevator myself, in my gym sneakers, clutching my handbag and my laptop, trying to count the number of times I had been told (since childhood) to take the stairs during an emergency.

The rest of the day was surreal. Hundreds of people crowded Vesey Street as I left the building and walked North on the West Side Highway. When the second plane hit, people were instantly frightened. This was no accident. And, when the Towers disappeared, we were all breathless…

Nice to hear someone make a bold statement about how people see and feel about advancement in the workplace. The Business of Life blog points out that for years people have talked about success in terms of connections rather than expertise. I too have been surprised to hear friends and colleagues downplay the need to be good at what you do in order to succeed. In truth, I started to think it was a throw away line for people that were lazy. Sorry. It might sound harsh. But, it’s true.

BOL points out that people are still at the core of what we do and what we accomplish. I agree completely. No one can do it alone – and why would you want to? Learning from and working with other people is still the most important thing we can all do over time.