Today's Oregonian editorialized: "Tek's Shanghai Surprise... The storied company will move production work to China in a disappointing blow to Oregon's economy and pride."

That made me think backward through my career.

Tektronix brought me to the Pacific Northwest in 1980. Years earlier I had a list of the companies that I would most like to work for some day. Tek was at the top of my list, and the reality exceeded the dream, rewarding me with several of the best years of my professional life, before the once-great company started to crumble.

I had experienced a similar scenario during almost 25 years working for Sylvania Electric Products - my first real job out of college - first watching it merge with General Telephone to form GTE, and later deciding that the pending acquisition by Philips was a good time to make that move to Oregon.

During a coop education at Northeastern University, I had worked for four half-years at General Radio Company, then the premier electronic test equipment company. It was said that GR's new competitor, now known as HP, could have the business west of the Rockies, and GR would keep the rest. GR, too, is long gone, vanishing into a new world of semiconductor manufacturing.

All that's left are the brands: Tektronix, Sylvania, GR(GenRad).

In one lifetime this seems like a story of multiple disasters. But maybe growth in population and technology leave no other options for the old-style company than to "burn out." The next century may not favor big companies organized for "efficiency of scale." Instead, a better model may be loose affiliations of many smaller firms that can act together or individually to meet current conditions, without incurring long term commitments.

The challenge for today's kid is to guess what tools and experience are the best qualifications for staying on top even as the ride gets bumpy.

CNN: What are You?

Ok, I admit that my politics are more Keith and Rachel than O'Reilly and Beck. But at least they represent a consistent bias. If I want one-sided coverage of the news I know where to go.

PBS and CSPAN provide lots of useful resources but they lack focused coverage of policy & opinion when it comes to current political issues.

Where is CNN? This network has done serious reporting on many subjects, but it seems to be left at the starting gate on current issues.

Why must CNN support Lou Dobbs' rants and superficial discussions among the same experts night after night.

Dan Schorr recently said that his concern about the decline of newspapers is the loss of editing. So why couldn't CNN be a viable TV "newspaper?"

Why can't CNN give us more access to the wisdom of thoughtful, knowledgeable people like David Gergen and David Brooks and give them enough time to fully develop subjects of current interest. Why not add some serious satire to the mix, rather than leaving it to the Comedy Channel? And let's eliminate plugs for new books as a criteria for being on these shows.

Perhaps they could have a daily "top ten list" of topics that the public is (or should be) concerned about. They could bring in expert, middle-of-the-road, moderators for each topic, updating at regular intervals and interrupting with "breaking news" when appropriate. Perhaps they wouldn't be afraid of talking about Limbaugh's inappropriate comments or references to the "Brown shirts" or the roles of various special interest groups in political debates.

GE vs Apple

Am I the only one who enjoys watching the capitalization horse race between GE and AAPL?

It's back to being pretty close today, despite the recent big run up in Apple...