Republish: Basketball by the Numbers

A fantastic piece written by Malcolm Gladwell about a new book entitled The Wages of Win: Taking Measure of the Many Myths in Modern Sport. Absolutely fantastic, and dare I say, a must-read:

A couple of extra points about my piece in this week’s New Yorker on “Wages of
Wins.”
www.newyorker.com/critics/books/?060529crbo_books1.
For
those of you who haven’t read the article, it was a review of a book by three
economists—David Berri, Martin Schmidt, and Stacey Brook—who have come up with
an algorithm for assessing the value of professional basketball players. Simply
put, they rank players according to what they call a Win Score—which is the
number of wins that player alone can be said to have been responsible for in a
given season.
Here’s the amazon link to the book:
The author’s website is: www.wagesofwins.com
I’ve noticed, in reading reactions to
the book around the blogosphere, a certain residual skepticism, particularly
among hard-core basketball fans. Someone wrote in to point out, for instance,
that Shawn Marion’s Win Score this past season was higher than Steve Nash’s,
when common sense would suggest that the team would suffer far more from the
loss of Nash than Marion. I think that's right. Nash is more ultimately
more valuable to the Suns than anyone else.
Basketball is tricky. No
statistical formula can adequately measure the series of intangible factors that
are so critical to a team’s success: a player’s impact on his teammates, for
example, or attitude, or willingness to play hurt, or grace under pressure
or—most important of all—how well a player plays defense. Nash’s particular,
largely unquantifiable; genius is that he manages to make everyone around him
much better. As Bill Simmons (world’s greatest sportswriter) points out in his
column today, Tim Thomas was traded to the Suns this season after nine years of
disappointment, and all of a sudden he played like a star. Is that a
conincidence? I don't think so.
Similarly, the Wages of Wins algorithm tells
us that over the course of his career Ray Allen has been “worth” nearly as much
to the teams he has played for as Kobe Bryant. Does that mean Allen is as good
as Bryant? Of course not. Bryant is one of the greatest on-the-ball defenders of
his generation and Allen is, well (let’s be nice here) not. Perhaps the
best part of Kobe's game doesn't—and probably can't—show up in any kind of
statistical analysis.
But the Wages of Wins guys aren’t arguing that their
formulas are the only and best way to rate players. They are making a more
sophisticated—and limited—claim: for those aspects of basketball performance
that are quantifiable (steals, turnovers, rebounds, shots made and missed, free
throws etc) are the existing statistical measures we use to rate players any
good? And if not, is there a better way to quantify the quantifiable?
To the
first question, “Wages of Wins” argues—convincingly—no. For instance, they show
that the correlation between a team’s payroll and a team’s performance, in the
NBA, is surprisingly weak. What that tells us is that the people charged with
evaluating and rewarding ability and performance in the NBA do a lousy job. In
particular, they argue, traditional talent evaluation over-rates the importance
of points scored, and under-rates the importance of turnovers, rebounds and
scoring percentage. Wages of Wins also obliterates the so-called NBA Efficiency
rating, which is the official algorithm used by the league and many basketball
experts to rank the statistical performance of players. The Efficiency rating,
they argue, makes the same error. It dramatically over-rewards players who take
lots and lots of shots.
Okay: part two. Is the Wages of Wins algorithm
an improvement over the things like the NBA Efficiency system? To make the case
for their system, the authors “fit” their algorithm to the real world. For the
2003-04 season, they add up the number of wins predicted by their algorithm for
every player on every team, and compare that number to the team’s actual win
total. Their average error? 1.67 wins. In other words, if you give them the
statistics for every player on a given team, they can tell you how many wins
that team got that season, with a margin of error under two wins. That’s pretty
good.
Here’s what I think the real value of the Wages of Wins system is,
though. It gives us a tool to see those instances where our intuitive ratings of
players may be particularly inaccurate. In my New Yorker piece, I focused on how
the algorithm tells us that Allen Iverson isn’t nearly the player we think he
is. But here’s a more interesting finding. The best player, by this measure,
hands down, over the past five years has been Kevin Garnett. No one else comes
close. I had the authors update their numbers for this season, and Garnett is
again number one (with Jason Kidd second, Shawn Marion third and LeBron James
fourth). Why wasn’t Garnett’s name mentioned in the MVP voting? I know it’s
fashionable these days to rag on Garnett for not making his teammates better or
some such. But as David Berri told me, what the Wins Score numbers say is that
every year Garnett gets better and better, and every day the quality of the
players that Kevin McHale surrounds him with gets worse and worse. (Can you say
Ricky Davis?)
Just for fun, here are some Wins Scores numbers for this
season. Here are the players who’s Wins Score rankings differ the most from
their NBA Efficiency rankings—that is, the players who’s “true” value diverges
greatest from conventional wisdom, according to the Wins Score system.
Most
under-rated, in order:
1. Josh Childress
2. Tyson Chandler
3. Eddie Jones
4. Chris Duhon
5. Mike Miller
6. Delonte West
7. Antonio Daniels
8. Shane Battier
9. Luther Head
10. Drew Gooden
Here are the ten most over-rated.
1. Al Harrington
2. Carmelo Anthony
3. Zach Randolph
4. Richard Hamilton
5. Chris Webber
6. Nenad Krstic
7. Allen Iverson
8. Mike Bibby
9. Antwawn Jamison
10. Ricky Davis
Now argue with that list all you want.
Factor in intangibles. Make projections. Move some people up and down. But once
you’ve read the book, I promise you won’t be able to dismiss it.

Note to the residents of Utah

The purpose of this post is mainly cathartic, as living in this God-forsaken place has finally taken its toll on me. I really don't like to disclose a lot about me, although by looking at some of my previous posts, it's fairly obvious to figure out a little bit about who I am.

I live in the State of Utah. I don't like it, I'm trying to move out, but for now, I have to deal with my current situation. I would like to write a note to the residents who live here. I should preface this by saying that this is a generalization and it doesn't apply to everyone who lives here, but for the most part, it's true:

First, nobody outside of the state takes you seriously. People look down upon those who live here. People who live here are basically viewed by outsiders as no different from people who live in states like Idaho, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Montana, and the deep South. Generally speaking, you are all a bunch of hicks. The question that is now coming to most Utah resident's is 'Why?' Well, I'll be happy to tell.

First and foremost is the religious thing. You guys take it way to damn seriously. Folks, religion is not everything. And no, the Mormon religion is not the 'one and only true' religion on the face of the Earth. God doesn't take away other's free agency by demanding they join this or that religion, so why should you?

Along with religion, you still allow polygamy to flourish in the State. If you don't believe me, take a look at the South-Western part of the Salt Lake Valley, Centeral Utah, and of course Southern Utah. The Attorney General has not done a damn thing about the blatant violation of State and Federal polygamy laws, nor will he ever.

Another thing that irks me about the State is horrible driving. You people cannot drive for shit. You don't signal when you turn, you can't merge properly, you weave when cars are in your lane, you don't drive when you're supposed to, you don't stop when you're supposed to, and most importantly of all, you DON'T ANTICIPATE HOW YOUR ACTIONS WILL AFFECT OTHERS!

Another thing that bothers me about Utah is the local press, or lack there of. The local news looks like it was produced at the local high-school. Anything that involves 'The Church' is front page news/lead story news. Your anchors are inarticulate. And the news stations fire people for finding dirt about someone's past.

Horrible doesn't begin to describe your sports team. A perfect example of this is the fact that the owner of the Utah Jazz would rather spend money by expanding his movie theater empire, rather than spend money on obtaining top talent in the NBA with the hopes of possibly winning an NBA Championship.

I could go on and on but it really wouldn't serve a purpose, and I'm pretty sure that I've done a good job in describing what living in Utah is like. If any of you disagree, feel free to post your thoughts in the comments section.

fYi Yankee Fans

As an FYI to all Yankee fans, your team is now 1-4 so far this season against the Red Sox. Oh, and just in case you needed a reminder, the Red Sox are still in first place in the AL East. Although these two teams are usually battling down the stretch (and it should be the same this year), the Sox so far seem to have there number.

It should be a very interesting summer.

Republish Thursday: Gladwell on the Duke LaX Case

I may have mentioned this earlier in this blog (or perhaps it was my other blog) but Malcolm Gladwell is one of my favorite authors. I've read both of his books, The Tipping Point and Blink, and for lack of a better word, they're both fabulous.

In any case, here's a reposting of a couple of his thoughts on the recent Duke LaCrosse Team scandal:

I don’t have any opinion on the guilt or innocence of Duke lacrosse players
charged with raping a exotic dancer. But I do think the incident affords a
small opportunity to think about the value of eyewitness testimony. The
accuser, who is black, identified two players alleged to have assaulted her
after looking over photographs of all of the white players on the lacrosse
squad. On the basis of that identification, the players were
indicted by a grand jury. So far, the accuser’s testimony is the most
powerful fact in the prosecution’s arsenal. The question is: how much
credence should we give that identification?
Psychologists don’t particularly
like eye witness testimony. Elizabeth Loftus has done a lot of really
interesting work exposing its various frailties. Juries and
laypeople (and prosecution attorneys) tend to have a great deal more faith in
someone’s ability to pick a suspect out of a lineup than they should.
In Blink, I mentioned the research of Jonathan Schooler on lineups: he’s
showed that merely requiring people to write down a physical description of the
suspect before viewing the lineup radical impairs their ability to pick out the
correct person.
But the Duke case is an example of another, even more
problematic aspect of eyewitness identifications, and that is that we aren’t
particular good at making them across races. There is a huge amount
of psychological research in their area, pioneered by Roy Malpass at the
University of Texas at El Paso. A few years ago, John Brigham and
Christian Meissner did a big meta-analysis of all of the cross-racial
identification studies and concluded that given the task of picking someone out
of a lineup, the average person is something like 1.4 times more likely to
correctly identify an own-race face than a different-race face, and 1.6 times
more likely to incorrectly identify a different race face. These are
not trivial error rates. Clearly we need to treat cross-racial identifications
with a special level of caution. (Here’s the link to the UTEP eyewitness
laboratory: eyewitness.utep.edu/race.html)
The problem seems to be that
when we encounter someone from a different group we process them at the group
level. We code the face in our memory under the category black or
white, and not under the category of someone with, say, an oval face and brown
eyes and a prominent chin. Race, in other words, trumps other visual
features that would be more helpful in distinguishing one person from
another. Why do we do this? One idea is simply that it’s
a result of lack of familiarity: that the more we “know” a racial
type, the more sophisticated our encoding becomes. Another idea is that it’s a
manifestation of in-group/out-group bias. The thing about coding by
group and not by facial feature is that it’s a lot faster. And from
an evolutionary standpoint, you’d want to use quicker processing methodologies
in dealing with those who come from unfamiliar—and potentially
unfriendly—groups. The bottom line is that the adage that “all
blacks look the same” to whites (and all whites look the same blacks) has some
real foundation.
This has been a huge issue for years in white
identifications of black suspects. I would venture to guess that there are
thousands of African Americans in prison right now for crimes they didn’t
commit, largely because whites have far too much faith in their ability to tell
one black face from another. Now, in the Duke case, we have a black
identification of white suspects. The shoe is on the other foot. It
will be interesting to see whether the legal system is any more willing to
acknowledge the real limitations of eye-witness identifications when it is
suspects from the racial majority who are on the receiving end of the bias, not
the other way around.

The Da Vinci What?

The Da Vinci Code (the movie) has been released and is receiving less than spectacular reviews. I recently started reading the much-proclaimed novel, and have yet to understand what all the hype is about. Jesus marries Mary Magdalane, they have a child, blah blah, blah.

Folks, this book is a work of fiction. Just like The Firm, It, and Sesame Street. It's not to be taken seriously. Even my three-month old child enjoys hearing it read to him.

Polygamy is still Illegal in Utah..for Now

The Utah Supreme Court upheld it's long-standing ban on polygamy today. While it's not suprising that they did so, what is surprising is the fact there were actually Justices on the Court who dissented with the majority opinion.

The thing that made my jaw drop was the following quiver of information "Chief Justice Christine Durham issued a dissenting opinion saying Holm's bigamy conviction should not be upheld. She said that applying the bigamy law to marriages solemnized only in religious ceremonies

"oversteps lines protecting the free exercise of religion and the privacy of intimate, personal relationships between consenting adults."

Unbelievable. Folks, frankly speaking, we live the year 2006. Now granted, some of us are little cooky on what we find 'sexually appealing' however, it has been clearly defined for the last 120 years in both Federal and State Court that bigamy is (in most cases) a felony offense. However when we have these rougue Judges who ignore case law and issue opinions that are factually against the law, it's clear that some people still are not getting the hint.

What's more, this opinion was written by a Judge in Utah - a state where anybody who has a remote idea of allowing Gay Marriage is riduculed and cast out of mainstream society. Re-read the quote above and frame it in the context of gay marriage and think, how is gay marriage any different than polygamy using the Justice Durham's logic?

eBay v. MercExchange, Cont'd

eBay was successful in having the Supreme Court vacate an earlier District Court ruling and remand the case back down to District Court for retrial (I had a couple thoughts about it here).

MercExchange issued a statement saying it was confident that the district court would impose an injunction on eBay "when it fairly applies the traditional principles of equity set forth in the Supreme Court's opinion ... "

Uhm, excuse me? Are you trying to say that in the past 3 years of this litigation, eBay hasn't taken it upon itself to change the back-end technology to essentially by-pass Merc's patent? Do you really take them for such fools?

Let's get a couple things straight: As soon as eBay lost the orignial patent lawsuit back in 2003, it immediately went to work to change the back end structure of it's Buy It Now featuer so that it would no longer infringe on the patent that Merc claims to have. What's more, it took the additional step of accounting for the $25 Million that a District Judge awarded to Merc as part of the damages.

The only reason eBay pursues this issue to the extent that it does is just to make sure that legal precedent isn't set. Frankly speaking, if Merc really believes that they're going to shut down one of the most powerful companies in the world, they have another thing coming.

Republish Thursday: A Conversation with the CEO of Real Networks

I thought this was quite amusing from ValleyWag:

Remember Real Networks? (Only when you ignore .ram files, right?) The media-distro company may be dead in the water, but when CEO Rob Glaser (pictured) talked to the Guardian, he tried his damnedest to run on pure spin. (Drinking game: Every time the Guardian's Kate Bulkley asks, "So such-and-such?" and Rob replies, "No, such-and-such," take a sip -- a SIP -- of beer.)

Spin rule #1: Take what you can get.

Our business last year was $325 million, which was up from $266 million the
year before and our most recent quarter was $87 million in revenue.

Rob, that includes $39 million Microsoft paid you from your $761 million anti-trust lawsuit. What's your business plan, sue a new monopolist every five years?

Spin rule #2: If you don't have anything nice to say...

RG: In Europe we now download over 100,000 free players a
day.
KB: And how many paying subscribers do you have in Europe for your
players?
RG: We have not broken out the number of subscribers.

Just like I "have not broken out" the number of supermodels I've slept with.

Good times all around. Have a good weekend.

Free Speech?

As many of you may or may not know, I'm not a big fan of Mark Cuban. Sure, what he's done with the Dallas Mavericks is great, but overall, I think he's a moron who happened to be at the right place, at the right time (refering to his $2 Bill that he made on broadcast.com when he sold it to Yahoo).

Cuban was fined $200,000 for stepping onto the court during a recent Playoff Game agains the San Antonio Spurs, and complaining about the officials on his blog. I won't bore you to death and re-hash what he wrote (you can read it for yourself), but in summation, he basically says that he doesn't appreciate the calls of some officials during playoff games, and publicly wonders how game officials are chosen for playoff games.

I'm not so much concerned about the calls of the NBA Officials right now, but I am concerned when someone is required to pay money as a consequence for voicing their displeasure over something. Don't get me wrong, I understand that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights doesn't necessarily apply in a Corporate setting, but what kind of message is the NBA sending when the fine people who complain about the job performance of some of its employees.

Can you imagine if you were fined every time that you spoke up at your place of business? (Although, it almost goes without saying that most people in their place of employment DON'T complain, in fear of retribution. I digress).

The point of the matter is I think the NBA is overstepping it's bounds of the traditional employer/employee relationship when it fines its employees for speaking up against it. From the NBA's perspective, I could understand why it doesn't like its employees 'bashing' its league/officials, but it doesn't give it the right to punish its employees. When this happens, the league doesn't grow, get better, and eventually, the quality of play is diminished.

Love Notes From Iran

Iran today sent a letter to President Bush (apparently, all email being sent to the White House from Iran is being forwarded to president Bush's trash folder) in hopes of trying to difuse a very tense situation, as well as to try and open the lines of communication between the countries - lines that have been formally closed for the last 27 years.

The White House quickly responded saying that the letter failed to address any concerns about Iran's attempts to develop nuclear weapons. Of course, the actual contents of the letter haven't been publicly released so there's no way for the American public to really know what the letter said. For all we know, the letter could be offering complete disclosure of all of Iran's Nuclear Program and this 'conflict' could be over. I digress.

It's really interesting that Iran went to all the trouble of sending a note. For one thing, it means they may be semi-interested in trying to get this little tiff resolved. But why would the Bush administration summarily rebuff such an attempt, when Iran has clearly shown interest in at least talking about the issue?

Frankly speaking, unless a miracle occurs in the next 7 months, I really think we're soon going to be much involved in an armed conflict involving Iran. Bush and Co. enjoy moving the military at their whim too much to pass up another opportunity to bomb the holy hell out another country in the mid East. And let's face it, Bush understands that if he starts bombing another member of OPEC, his retirement account only grows bigger. It would be dumb of him not to do it.

YahooSoft

YahooSoft...the word just rolls off your tongue like Google, or AltaVista or better yet, ...bad idea! In an almost gossipy sounding article today (sub required), WSJ announced that Microsoft and Yahoo have been secretly consipiring to take on Google head-on with Microsoft buying an equity stake in Yahoo.

Microsoft has been busy sipping their Caramel Macchiatto's up in Redmond, trying to come up with an idea to take on the mighty Googlers. Yesterday, it was reported that Microsoft's new version of IE will contain a browser built-in search bar that will query results from Microsoft. Google, in turn has threatened to call in the Anti-Trust bouncers and remind them them about the really mean guys up in the state of Washington. (And I thought nerds never played dirty). I digress.

Taking on Google when it comes to Search is a bad idea - a very bad idea. Google already has a loyal, dedicated following of users. I heard/read something recently that most Web-saavy users already use Google because of how consistantly Google delievers top-notch search results.

Here's an idea (and one that's been echoed across mainstream media for a few weeks now) if Yahoo and Microsoft et al want to take-on Google, why not do it where it's going to hurt Google the most - advertisements. Where could they do this? They could take advantage of PPC marketers who seek to drive traffic to their websites, or websites owned by others. Google has been a real stickler by only allowing one Display URL per website.

If I were Microsoft or Yahoo, I would allow as many Display URL's to be displayed as PPC Marketers wanted to display. There would be no cost to you as you collect a fee every time a person clicks on an ad, regardless of what URL they are taken to.

If Microsoft and Yahoo did this, Affiliate Marketers and Web Marketers would FLOCK away from Google to these other search engines. And Terry, and Bill would be lauging all the way to the bank.

Great "New" Site

I know that I might be a little behind the curve in blogging about this, but I wanted to let everybody know about this new website called Youtube.com

To me, this is exactly what Web 2.0 is all about - new, fresh, and interactive. Along with it's pals like MySpace and Blogger, Youtube allows people to interact by giving them the ability to post video on the Web. People not only post video of themselves, but they also use it to share video with their friends.

Earlier this year, my buddies contstantly sent me updates of the latest and greatest video (most of them being highlights from SNL) on the Web. It started out with a Chronicles of Narnia spoof, and tonight, continued with watching and reminiscing about Joe Namath.

Will youtube, myspace et al fail? Frankly speaking, it's hard to say at this point. Most are way to young to make accurate projections on how they will do after the intial flurry of traffic to their websites slows down. Also, most new websites are more and more relying on Angel or Venture Capital to grow their business (Great article in today's WSJ about this. Sub required) . I do hope, however, that we learned our lesson the first time around - another fall would be even worse than the first.

Couple Quick Thoughts

I'm out at Ad: Tech in SF for the next couple of days. In the mean time, I thought that I would pass along a couple links that I hope you will enjoy:

The Sports Guy had some interesting (read: funny) thoughts about the NBA Playoffs.

MySpace.com Co-Founder Tom Anderson allegedly has his own 'private' account.

Not surprisingly, Angelina Jolie is the world's most beautiful person - according to People.

I should have Republish Thursday available for you tomorrow.

Why You Should Pay People

Yahoo today published a semi-humorous story about an ex-eBay Affiliate who was sent to jail today for five months for sending threatening email messages to Meg Whitman and Pierre Omidyar.

The man claimed he was owed $7200 of back-pay through eBay's Affiliate Program. The reason I found this story particularly amusing is because I work in the world of online marketing and am very familiar with the ins and outs of affiliate marketing.

People who run affiliate websites are a fickle bunch - in many ways similar to sellers on online Auctions sites. Don't get me wrong, for the most part most Affiliates are normal business people. But there are others (typically those Affiliates that run smaller websites) who are, frankly speaking, a pain in the ass to work with.

Under no circumstances are merchants allowed to mess around with how they pay Affiliates. If an Affiliate feels that they were short-changed in any way, they will raise hell until something is done about it. If you don't believe me, be sure to check out Abestweb.

Executive Producer: Starbucks, Inc

In an an interesting move, Starbucks (sbux) is now getting into the business of promoting movies. Akeelah and the Bee is a new movie that is opening this Friday. SBUX is promoting the movie by including it on the 4 million sleeves that it hands out to its patrons daily.

SBUX is not new to the entertainment business. For years it has tried selling CD's in it's stores. I wouldn't call this a successful venture in any way. CD prices in SBUX stores range from $9.99-$19.99. And the artists that they offer are more familiar to SBUX's older customers SBUX also has wireless Web access in many of its stores, where consumers can log onto Itunes and purchase tracks starting at $.99.

Is the movie business a good idea? Frankly speaking, I'm not so sure. The SBUX brand is one of the most recognizable brands in the world. To start branching out and getting involved in businesses (i.e. marketing/advertising) that have nothing to do with your core competencies is always risky. If the movie does horribly at the box office, there's no doubt that the sbux brand will be affected. However, if it succeeds, it will be another reason why sbux will continue to be a solid investment.

Republish Thursday (okay, it's Friday): Why Oil is so High

This week's theme, obviously, has been the sky-rocketing price of Oil. One of my favorite writer's over at MSNBC.com has this to say about why Oil is so high.

April 21, 2006 - When your heart starts racing faster than the digital numbers on the gas pump, you know there’s a problem with the price. And if you haven’t had that shock already, you will soon. Last week, the U.S. Energy Department estimated regular gasoline would cost an average of $2.62 a gallon this summer, up 10.5 percent from last year. Already that sounds optimistic. By the beginning of this week, the average price of regular was $2.79. On Wednesday, the DOE suggested prices might actually get up to around $3 this summer, but wouldn’t remain “that high, on average, over a whole month.” Meanwhile, the price of crude oil—which determines the base price of gasoline—has jumped to record highs, and looks set to climb some more.

Yep, there is a problem. And while oil industry analysts and the Bush administration will make the reasons sound very complicated, throwing in every market variable from refinery capacities to inventories to Nigerian guerrillas, I’ll sum it up for you in one word: “Iran.”

Although Tehran has yet to use “the oil weapon” by cutting supplies—far from it—saber-rattling President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is learning fast that he can shake up the nervous global energy market with just a calculated remark here or there. In economic language so measured it sounded vaguely Greenspanian, the Iranian president told Tehran Radio this week that “the global oil price has not reached its real value yet.” At that, the cost of a barrel went splashing over the unprecedented $72 mark. “Every time there's an issue with Iran, the oil market freaks out," as one New York analyst told the Associated Press.

Ahmadinejad has a reputation as a wild-eyed provocateur. (How often has he said, in various ways, he’d like to see Israel wiped off the map?) And nothing drives up prices like rumors of war. But it’s the United States and Israel cranking up the volume at the moment. After a Palestinian blew himself up in front of a Tel Aviv falafel stand this week, killing nine people and wounding dozens, Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Dan Gillerman told the press there’s a new “axis of terror” in the Middle East. “A dark cloud is looming over our region, and it is metastasizing as a result of the statements and actions by leaders of Iran, Syria and the newly elected [Hamas] government of the Palestinian Authority,” said Gillerman, that amount to “clear declarations of war.”

President George W. Bush, meanwhile, remains coy about what military options he may or may not use, eventually, to try to eliminate Iran’s rapidly progressing nuclear research, which Iran says is purely for peaceful purposes—even as it perfects possible bomb-related technologies. And while the clock ticks, every dollar increase in the price of oil brings the Iranian government an extra dividend of roughly $2 million a day, plus the tens of billions reaped in rising prices since 2003.

None of these apparent ironies should be surprising. Iran, the second largest petroleum producer in the Persian Gulf, has sometimes been a frustrating ally and sometimes an avowed enemy of the United States. But it has always been the epicenter of major oil shocks.

Consider the performance of the last Shah. A 1953 coup engineered by Britain and the United States restored him to power after his rather more democratic opponents, who’d ousted him, threatened Western oil interests. “I owe my throne to God, my people, my army—and to you!” the Shah told Kermit “Kim” Roosevelt, the CIA’s man in Tehran at the time. Yet 20 years later the same Shah took advantage of the 1973 Arab oil embargo to ram through prices more than 10 times higher than they’d been in 1970. “Iran will be one of the serious countries of the world,” the Shah insisted, evoking the millennia-old glories of Persia’s past.

As Daniel Yergin writes in his classic 1990 study “The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power,” after that surge in prices the Shah was soon talking with regal airs about petroleum as a “noble product.” He haughtily advised Western nations that “they will have to realize that the era of their terrific progress and even more terrific income and wealth based on cheap oil is finished.” He talked of the United States, and all of the West, with undisguised disdain.

“Eventually all those children of well-to-do families who have plenty to eat at every meal, who have their cars, and who act almost as terrorists and throw bombs here and there, they will have to rethink all these aspects of the advanced industrial world. And they will have to work harder,” said the Shah. “Your young boys and young girls who receive so much money from their fathers will also have to think that they must earn their living somehow.” Ahmadinejad could lift those lines verbatim to rouse Iranian crowds today, and practically does.
In 1979, when the Shah fell to the Islamic revolution of Ayatollah Khomeini, new oil shocks rocked the world economy. Suddenly there were places in the United States where gasoline was not to be had at any price. (I worked at a service station outside Washington, D.C., during the July 4 holidays that year, reporting a story for The Washington Post. Part of my job was to carry the “Last Car” sign down the long line of motorists, marking the end of hope for those who had waited the better part of a day to fill their tanks. I was offered bribes. I was threatened. But there was nothing to be done.) It seemed as if a whole way of life had ended. By 1980, the price of oil reached highs that, adjusted for inflation, would top $90 a barrel today. That same threshold is approaching now.

Before we get that far, it’s worth considering that Iran’s assertiveness in regional and world affairs seems, quite literally, to follow the market. When the Shah depended on the CIA in 1953 (and the barrel of oil was priced in pennies) he was a more-or-less craven ally. Two decades later, flush with petro-dollars, he was a raving imperialist, who later started Iran’s nuclear program. So, too, with the mullahs. When oil prices were astronomical in the early 1980s, ayatollahs were looking to spread their revolution far and wide. When the price had sunk to about $10 a barrel in the late 1990s, reformists were ascendant in Tehran, and wanted to accommodate the West almost any way they could.

More recently, on the nuclear front, when the mullahs agreed to freeze their enrichment research in 2003, the average price of oil was about $30 a barrel. They again started up nuclear fuel enrichment activities—the same process that can be used to make fissionable material for atomic weapons—last year when the price of oil had reached $50. By the time they announced earlier this month that they’d succeeded with enrichment, oil prices were on their way to $70. Tensions drive up the cost of oil, international pressure inspires Iranian nationalism and increased revenues underwrite the mullahs’ ability to resist.

I’m not sure there’s a quick way out of this spiral. But I do know this: if global oil consumption goes down—and the United States accounts for 25 percent of that—then so will the price of oil. And history suggests that if oil prices fall, so will the ambition and intransigence of any Iranian regime. So if you want to force the mullahs to make a deal, talk peace, not war. And think about trading in that SUV before you end up in the line on the wrong side of the “last car” sign.

This Apple Didn't Fall from the Tree..It Rose..

Apple Computer announced earnings today; among the highlights:

-Second Quarter Profits rose a mind-blowing 41%.
-Revenue for the quarter was $4.36 Billion (up 34% from a year ago, though still below the projected $4.54 Billion).

Most impressive (to me anyways) was the fact that iPod Sales totaled $1.7 Billion, while sales for the Mac totaled $1.57 Billion. More than 8.5 Million units of th iPod were shipped during the quarter, which was also up 61% YoY.

It just goes to show that high oil prices still won't deter people from buying the finer things in life. Now, what was the name of that 50 Cent song that I just heard...

Senator Schumer Calls for Probe

In an update to yesterday's post, Senator Charles Schumer called today for a probe into whether or not big oil companies were in collusion and withholding supplies in an effort to drive up prices.

The average price of gasoline has jumped up to $2.79 (although it was $2.29 here while I was driving home from work this evening).

Frankly speaking, I highly doubt that an investigation like this will go anywhere - especially when we have two ex-oil executives running the country. In the mean time, I'm still looking for a great deal on a Prius.

It Don't Stop...'Cause It Can't Stop

Oil prices settled above $70 per barrel today for the first time since Killer Katrina stormed her way on shore in early September.

Gas prices where I live are relatively low compared with prices in the rest of the donations. I put Premium Unleaded fuel in my SUV this morning and spend $2.53/gallon. These prices aren't that bad, however, the sad thing is, these are prices before the summer driving season starts on Memorial Day weekend - a weekend in which traditionally Gas Stations typically raise their prices $.10-$.15 regardless of what gas prices are currently at.

Normally I'd be fine with this, but if oil continues to be be in $65-$75 per barrel range, it's quite possible that even I could be paying $3 a gallon for gas this summer (goodbye 5x's a week sbux).

The question is, how do we resolve the situation? When we first went into Iraq, I was excited because I thought it meant that we were going to paying $.25 for gas in a matter of weeks. However, we all know how that one turned out.

Now with Iran pissing and moaning about having WMD's, and further instability in the MidEast, the oil situation is anything but stable. The Bush Administration has proposed 'weening' us off Oil, however, how serious can he be about this? He and his family have a vested financial interest in seeing the United States buy oil at the rate that it does.

Another thing, I was watching one of those pathetic morning news show on the always credible Fox News Channel, and actually heard one of the commentators state that "American's are discovering the Hybrid vehicles aren't as cracked up as they first thought they were." Uhm, excuse me? Is that why Toyota Prius' can't stay in stock at my local Toyota dealer? Is that why there's a significant premium on hybrid cars?

Frankly Speaking, we as people DO need to stop relying on foreign oil, but it's not going to be a quick fix. It's going to take time, and it's not going to be pretty. But I think eventually it can be done. Are there alternative energy solutions that can be developed? Absolutely (that is, if all our scientists don't move to another country, I digress). Instead of spending billions on a space program right now (that isn't feasible) maybe we should focus first being able to travel down the street to the local sbux without having to rely on a substance produced mainly by the enemies of the United States.

I will now go back to my venti carmal frap.

Syndication Thursday: Valleywag

A fairly 'new' blog from the wonderful world of Gawker: I give you www.valleywag.com - a social commentary on the life and times of Silicon Valley. I will also be linking to it on the right-hand of my blog. Hope you enjoy:

The New York Times today touts Zunafish, the revolutionary sharing site that lets users swap books, CDs, and other media. It's like Mediachest or Delicious Monster or Peerflix or GameTZ or Lala -- but with fewer options.
So the online sharing business is booming. (It's not piracy, it's sharing! It's not socialism, it's Web 2.0!) This is all well and good, but there must be something grander out there...say, a place where everyone would put their media, and it could be shared from this centralized source.
Users could pay a fee when they lived in a city with one of these centers, and then access them for free. Accounts could run on, um, some sort of card system. Yeah. This'll be brilliant! We'll give it a bubbly logo and call it Shareby.

Red Sox are in First Place!!

Just in case you've been living in a cave for the last week and a half, baseball is back and the Red Sox are off to a fast start!

The Sawx are 6 - 1, in first place and three games up on the evil Yankees. Of course, there is still 150+ games to go, but you can never start knocking on the Yanks early enough. Pitching (which has long been the death knell) has been as strong as ever, with Curt Schilling and new -comer Josh Beckett starting out a blazing 2-0 against opposing teams.

So far, so good, but as always with the Sawx, stay tuned, you never know what will happen.

Is MySpace Really Your Space?

MySpace announced today that it will begin to run ads warning users to be wary of sexual predators on the Internet.

The announcement comes after an onslaught of news reports of predators prowling the popular website to pick up on the teens who make up the website. Many of the recent reports have featured the Website as unhelpful when it comes to protecting kids from these nefarious people.

This raises the question, does MySpace have the responsibility to 'police' its own website? The answer is not as easy as it seems. Obviously, the demographic target of MySpace users is male and females between the ages of 18-34. However, the website has become extemely popular with teenagers 16-18, and has prominant usage with kids younger than 16.

According to a report on Dateline last night, MySpace has 30 people who actively 'patrol' the website, looking for people who are too young to use the site, and occassionally running into shady characters.

However, like all websites, MySpace has grown to a point where its almost impossible to control. With 60 million users, it's nearly impossible for employees of the website to look at ALL of the profiles to make sure that they are compliant with their rules.

With this in mind, who then, should be responsible for monitoring the Web activity of 25 million plus teenagers? Here's a thought - what about their parents? Call me crazy, but if parents actually took an interest in what their kids were doing on the Web, or watching on television, we wouldn't need all these 'automated controls' to be put in place by public 'censors'.

Parents, instead of demanding that companies stand up and clean up the content that they make available to the public, why don't you do YOUR job and take an active part in your childs life. Talk to them about what they see on television and read on the Web.

Sure, I think Sexual Predators are a huge problem on the Web, however, if the family computer was placed in a public place in the home, a child would be far less likely to converse with someone they didn't know, without their parent finding out.

Republish: How I Met Tiger Woods

Unbelievable story from the Grouch Golf Blog:

An amazing thing happened to me several months ago, but I was hesitant to write about it due to the sensitive nature of the topic. However, after realizing the low-profile nature of this site, I now feel comfortable telling my story...
As a member of Shady Canyon Country Club in Irvine, CA, I try to work out in their 1st-class gym at least once a week. On one such morning, I was working out when none other than Tiger walked in!
Since it was very early in the morning and it was during the holidays, there was only Tiger and myself in the free weight section. He initiated a conversation with me when he sat down at a weight bench and said, "Morning." I reciprocated and then he asked me, "Hey Bud (that's not my name, but he could call me Alice if he wanted), you mind spotting for me here?"
Although my nerves disabled most of my motor functions, I managed to say, "Sure thing T." In knee-jerk reaction, I cringed at myself for being such a jackass to call him "T". What right did I have to call him anything else but "your royal golf highness"? I thought to myself, just act normal you imbecile. Once I composed myself, I dropped my 10 pound barbells and came to his aid.
We actually spent quite a bit of time working out together and talking. It turns out that we actually have a lot in common. The key icebreaker was the revelation that we attended rival colleges. He attended Stanford while I attended Cal. As we engaged in some playful trash talking, I realized that Tiger is a really cool and down-to-earth guy. He has a dry, sarcastic sense of humor that had me in stitches.
After he was done working out he asked me, "Hey Bud, I have a tee time here at 10:30am, you wanna join me?" I felt like I had won the lottery. I looked around for cameras to check whether I was about to be Punk'd by Ashton Kutcher. When Mr. MILF didn't show up, I knew that it was legit. Unfortunately, I had to be at work by 9:30am to deliver a big presentation. There was no question what I had to do. I had to make that tee time.
After calling in sick and tossing my career down the drain, I met up with Tiger at the cart loading bay. Noticing my bag full of Nike Blades glistening in the sun he quipped, "Nice irons."
"Well, I saw Michelle Wie playing with a set and I was sold."
He flashed that world-famous Cheshire Cat smile and acknowledged, "That was a good one." He paused and then continued, "So you wanna make it interesting?"
"Are you kidding me? You better give me at least 30 strokes a side!"
He laughed and asked about my handicap. I gave him a well-sandbagged figure and he said, "OK, how about I give you 10 strokes a side Bud?" Only 10 strokes! I usually shoot in the mid-90s on this course from the tips whereas Tiger would break 70 easily. Therefore, I needed at least 14 stokes a side. I couldn't believe it, but Tiger was trying to screw me!
After some negotiating, I managed to extract 16 strokes a side. Satisfied, I said, "Well, what are we playing for?"
"You name it. I think I can cover it." I laughed as I pondered his offer. Considering that I was getting 32 strokes, I knew that I had a good shot at beating Tiger if I just played smart.
"If I win, how about I get to hang out with you for the next couple of days as your 'personal assistant'?"
He chuckled and remarked, "Don't you have a job to get back to?"
"Actually, I probably don't."
After some thought he said, "Well, I already have a couple of assistants, but I could always use another. What do I get if I win?" I thought about it for a while before he said, "Oh, don't worry about it, let's just play!"
I have always considered Tiger to be the primary member of my "dream foursome." So to actually play with Tiger is truly a dream come true. And the experience didn't disappoint. He is the most amazing golfer, period. To describe every incredible feat that I witnessed during our round would fill a book. Let me just say that I was in awe all day.
On the final hole I needed a double-bogey to win by a stroke. I was nervous beyond belief, and the constant ribbing by the best golfer of all-time didn't help. But I managed to hack it around good enough for a bogey and a win! Ecstatic over my victory, I gladly offered to void our little wager. He would have none of it. He insisted, "A bet's a bet Bud. You won fair and square. Now let's go get some grub."
We cleaned up and then headed to the clubhouse for lunch. The hostess led us to a table that was occupied by two stunning blondes. Not just blondes, but identical blondes! I was shocked. Tiger could only laugh at my bewilderment and then introduced me to his wife, Elin and her twin sister, Josie. Could this be for real?
It turns out that they are both sweet and almost too friendly. Surprisingly, I really hit it off with Josie. Unlike most hotties, she laughed at all my jokes and took a genuine interest in my stories.
After lunch, Tiger had to take care of some business at the GM PR office in Thousand Oaks. However, he called for a car to take us up to Beverly Hills for an extravagant shopping spree. He simply instructed us to call the number on the back of his Amex Black card when we were about 15 mins. away from our destination. Upon our arrival, two personal shoppers greeted us and escorted us to Rodeo Drive. I felt like a rock star shopping at the hippest boutiques accompanied by twin blonde bombshells!
After our shop-a-thon, we met up with Tiger at LAX. Straight out of a Puff Daddy video, our car pulled right up to a Gulfstream 550 private jet! Only then did I learn that we were to fly us back to his Isleworth home. Things were moving so fast that I didn't begin to question what was going on. It was only on the plane that I started to think about my life back home. What would I do about my job, my car, my clothes, etc? I explained my concerns to Tiger and he said, "Don't worry about that stuff, Bud. Just hang out with us and everything will take care of itself. You can stay at my guesthouses as long as you want." I couldn't believe my ears as the stewardess was filling my glass with bubbly.
The rest is history. In a million years, I never would have imagined that my life could change so dramatically in such a short time from a chance encounter. I now have a new job as Tiger's personal financial manager. In short, I monitor Tiger's expenses on the road. As a result, I've become a full-fledged member of his entourage and I get to travel with him all over the world. The only bad part of my job is that I've also been designated the "dog-sitter". Tiger likes to take that damn border collie of his wherever he goes and I'm the one who has to take care of it. There's nothing more in the world that I'm allergic to than pet dander and I think that Tiger assigned me this responsibility on purpose to drive me nuts. But hey, we all have to make some sacrifices, right?
It's been quite a whirlwind adventure and I am rapidly becoming close friends with the World's #1. In fact, there's a realistic chance that I may become his future brother in-law. Yes, things are going fabulously with Josie and me. We're even discussing moving in together into one of Tiger's newly planned guest homes! My life has never been better. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to pack my bags for my first trip to Augusta!
P.S. With all my travel and other obligations, I'll likely be completely offline for at least a week. So please don't be upset if I can't respond to your emails in a timely manner.

Frankly speaking if this is true, it's INCREDIBLE!

Can You Cross the Border

There has been lots of debate recently regarding the issue of immigration - specifically, should we deport illegal aliens (people without proper documentation) and how easy should it be in order to for foreigners to enter the country.

Frankly speaking (see, I told you that I'd throw one in there) I haven't researched the issue enough to take a solid position, one way or the other. I do know that all tis talk of immigration has caused enough commotion amongst Latinos in the United States to cause large protests all over the United States.

What purpose would deporting illegal aliens serve? Well, obviously, it would relieve the number of people in this country who clamour for social support from the state. It has been well documented that undocumented foreign workers earn well below both state and national adverages. Because of this, they are forced to rely on the state in order to subsidize their lack of salary, and this in turn causes those funds to go to undocumented workers, instead of those who may be rightfully deserving of them.

However, lots of these people come here from obviously poorer countries, where they often earn less in a day than what they can make in an hour here. They, in turn, send the excess to family that they left behind in their home country. That money is then deployed to that nation's economy, which, eventually trickles down to paying off that country's debt owed to the United States, World Bank, or IMF.

The above are just an example of the plusses and minusses involved on both sides of the issue. The issue is very big in the United States, and won't go away for a long time.

New Title of My Blog

Most of you who read my blog noticed that I recently changed the title of my blog from My Daily Dime to Frankly Speaking. I'm doing this because I believe Frankly Speaking is more of a catchy title, and if I really want to, I can start using those cliche statements towards the end of my blog where I begin a sentance with Frankly speaking....

In any case, I still focus on news, and business news, and try to write from an ordinary person/consumer perspective. I'm also going to start a Thursday feature (beginning next week) called Syndicating Thursday, where I will republish one of the blogs that I enjoy reading.

As always, if you want to know something special, leave a comment or send me an email.

eBay v MercExchange

eBay v MercExchange hit the Supreme Court today, and already it looks as if the Justices who sit on the Court have already made up their minds on the case.

The issue in this lawsuit contends with eBay's Buy It Now feature, which allows people to immediately purchase items from the Auction website. The patent was allegedly developed by MercExchange in 1995, just before eBay began it's rise to the top of the online world.

Justice Scalia reminded eBay's lawyers of the following, ""You're talking about a property right, and the property right is explicitly the right to exclude others. That's what a patent right is ... give me my property back."

Whether or not the Court agrees with eBay appears not to be the issue anymore - eBay claims to have already updated the back end coding of their BIN feature. What I believe is still at issue is the right of patent holders to arbitrarily sue successful companies who use technology that is similar to their patent.

Think about it, if eBay was a scrawny little company, MercExchange would not bother wasting their time suing them. However, after eBay has proved itself as the behemouth it is, MercExchange obviously wants a piece of the action.

eBay, for it's part, has not sat on their ass about this. I recall while working there when this lawsuit first came down, eBay's primary focus was changing the back end of their BIN feature to make sure that it didn't infringe upon MercExchange's patent.

I think the Court will likely side with MercExchange in this case, simply continuing their history of siding with patent holders. They did this recently by siding with NTP in its patent suit against Blackberry. However, at some point patent laws are going to have to reviewed and revisited. Too many people are taking advantage of this country's stringent laws, and one day, it could cause a lot of us a lot more harm than good.

A Couple Thoughts about Today's News

A couple interesting stories that piqued my interest today:

First, Doctors removed two fetuses from an infant today in Pakistan. Considering that the feat took place in Pakistan is the first thing that makes it amazing. It was apparrently a case of triplets, however, two of the fetuses developed inside each other.

Secondly, our friend Britney Spears was in the news again. This time because of a piece of art that was sculpted over her pregnant body. Be sure and take note of the picture, it may be the only time that you get to see her without any clothes on.

Alleged 5th Plane Hijacker

Interesting news today from Zacarias Moussaoui when he allegedly confessed to having a plan to (along with his pal Rich Reid) to takeover a 5th plane on 9/11 and fly it into the White House.

Maybe it's just me, but it's a little hard to believe that this alleged 5th Highjacking would've gone off without any problems. The reason I say that is, Rich Reid, the guy who was supposed to help Moussaoui do this thing, is the same guy who in December of '01 came up with what is (in my opinion) probably one of the most innovative ways to blow up a plane by building a bomb in his shoes. However, when it came time to light the match, he couldn't do it right.

Even more interesting to me is the fact that, if Moussaoui and Reid were going to fly this alleged fifth plane into the White House, what does that mean for United Flight 93? Were they going to take that one into the capital building? A couple more questions: If Moussaoui doesn't get arrested in the summer of '01, and the White House is destroyed, is 9/11 10 times worse than it already was?

No News is Good News

I really meant to blog about something today - really, I did. However there is absolutely NOTHING to talk about. Is it just me, or is everything eerily quiet, like right before 9/11.

Instead of blogging about one particular subject today, here is a collage of different things that are going on:

-The news around town in Salt Lake City is Karl Malone's number being retired.

- Here is a link to a quite amusing story I found on Wonkette. (By the way, if you're not reading Ana Marie Cox's new book "Dog Days", you're missing out. Good times).

- An interesting story on cnn about a girl who claimed she was kidnapped, but was apparrently living a couple miles from her father. All this over a time - span of 10 YEARS! And I thought that this only happened in Salt Lake City.

Hopefully, this should keep you all occupied until I write again - possibly tomorrow.

Google Finance

I suppose the big news of the day (other than Helen Thomas bitch-slapping President Bush) was the release of Google Finance.

I took this baby out for a joy-ride and to be perfectly honest, I wasn't that impressed. The site itself looks very rudimentry in nature, though the site is still in Beta. (Quick tangent: is it just me, or does Google stink when it comes to UI?)

One thing that I do like about Google Finance is the fact that it does relate to all information with regard to a paticular stock. For example, YHOO's finance page only displays mainstream news results when you are looking up information about a website. However, on Google Finance, it will also serve you with results from "less-than-mainstream" sites (read: blogs).

John Battelle had the following to say about Google Finance in his blog today:

"This marks a rolling shift at Google - the company is getting into publishing, whether or not it wants to admit it. The product manager, Katie Jacobs Stanton, admitted as much when we spoke - Google Finance will have a Groups section where stocks are discussed with paid moderators - that's editors to you and me. And that's a shift, a shift that is worth noting. "

Quattrone Case Thrown Out

A Federal Appeals Court in NYC threw out a conviction against Frank Quattrone. The Judge said that the Jury in the Quattrone case was improperly instructed when it went to deliberate about the case.

For those of you who don't remember good ol' Frank, he's the guy who was convicted on obstruction of justice charges because he allegedly told bankers to shred important documents relating to an IPO.

The case received a mistrial during its first time around. Quattrone was convicted his second time around and received 18 months. He is currently free while his conviction is appealed.

Quattrone was a classic poster boy (along with Bernie Ebbers, Martha Stewart, Enron, et al) of everything that was wrong with the business world during the bull market run of the late 1990s. It should be interesting to see if the government decides to retry the case, or decides that this fish isn't worth the fry.

Drug Causes impulsive Sex and Gambling

This won't be a long post but I wanted to share this interesting article that I found in the Post this morning about a Parkinson's drug that has lead to increased dopamine levels in the brain. Enjoy the read and the rest of your weekend.

We're on a Slippery Slope

A judge today ruled that Google must handover Search records to the Justice Department. As I posted in a related blog, this is the beginning of a slippery slope as far as our privacy online.

The DOJ is claiming that they have legitimate need for the records in an effort to determine exactly who is looking for child porn on the Web, however, can you really trust a government who was caught red-handed in tapping the phone lines of its own citizens.

Sergey Brin has publicly said many times that this could be the beginning of a slippery slope. This raises many questions on what limitations are in place when it comes to the government asking for data. What's to stop them from claiming they need to do research about people doing searches with the keywords 'dirty bomb', 'atomic bomb' or 'join terrorist group'.

We're headed in the wrong direction and I'm earnestly looking forward to anyone standing up to the government and telling them that they crossed the line.

Wal-Mart: How Good is Too Good?

I listened to a really interesting interview tonight on the local station of NPR about a recently published book entitled "The Wal-Mart Effect" by Charles Fishman.

In his book, Fishman describes the world's leading retailer and how far consumers go to find the best price. One of the many examples that was used in the interview was the fact that Wal-Mart sells lawnmowers for $99.99. To most people, $99 for a lawnmower seems like a great deal, but think about it, why would a 'quality' lawnmower only cost $99. Think about it, what if your lawnmower doesn't start 6 months after you stop using it? You have to take it in and get it repaired, which will likely cost you anywhere between $50-$60 - which is 66% of WHAT YOU PAID FOR A NEW LAWNMOWER!!

What Mr. Fishman implies in his interview that with every purchase, there is a 'quality' cost that has to be factored in. Wal-Mart does a very good job at excluding this 'quality' cost in an effort to achieve the lowest price.

Another example that Mr. Fishman included in his interview is that Levi Strauss recently introduced a line of jeans specifically to Wal-Mart. Normally, a pair of Levi Strauss jeans will set you back $33. At Wal-Mart, you can get a pair for $23? Is this a great deal? At face value, it's a great deal, but let's dig a bit deeper. What's the probability that these jeans last you more than 6 months after 'normal' use? I'd be willing to bet they wouldn't last me 3 months.

Wal-Mart has been in the news for soliciting the assistance of bloggers to help polish its image (I suppose this is there attempt at guerrilla marketing). I recently read a hilarious article indicting Wal-Mart for doing this.

You can download the podcast of the interview on iTunes, and you can purchase his book here.

Email Marketing Settlement

Datran, a huge online marketing company based in NYC recently settled a lawsuit with the State of New York. They were found guilty of marketing to customers to whom they collected personal information from while they were doing other projects from some of their clients. Consumers were usually duped into giving their personal information when they clicked through banner ads or text links that advertised free iPods or free plasma televisions.

Datran is a marketing company that will send out email advertisements, do banner ads, and text links in favor of other online Merchants. Companies provide Datran with basic information about their customers such as a name and an email address and Datran in turn does a online marketing campaign to get those people to buy from certain merchants.

Datran was accused by New York Attorney general Eliot Spitzer of spamming customers with discount drugs and diet pills. This article proves that you better be careful to whom you provide information about your customers to.

New List of Billionaires

Forbes is out with its annual list of billionaires. Once again, Bill Gates was on top of the list with his net worth rising to a eye-popping $50 Billion dollars. This reminds me of the old Chris Rock joke, where he says "If Bill Gates woke up and realized that he was only worth as much as Oprah Winfrey, he'd jump out the building and slit his throat on the way down!"

Warren Buffet ranked second on the list, although the value his net worth dropped by a cool $2 Billion to $42 Billion. You can read the complete article from the AP here, or wait until the next edition of Forbes.

Google Settles Click Fraud Case

From John Battelle's Blog:

The company has posted on the topic here. My original posting is here. This is clearly not just about the Lane's suit, it's about Google rejiggering its policies with regard to click fraud.
From Google's post:
We’re very near a resolution in that case, so we thought we’d offer an update.
We’ve been discussing the case with the plaintiffs for some time and have recently come to an agreement with them which we believe is a good outcome for everyone involved. As a result, Google and the plaintiffs are going to ask the judge to approve the settlement, which would resolve the case.
Until the settlement is approved by the judge, it is not final. And the details are confidential, but will become public when it is formally filed for the judge’s consideration. However, we can share the major pieces of our proposed agreement.
Google currently allows advertisers to apply for reimbursement for clicks they believe are invalid. They can do this for clicks that happen during the 60 days prior to notifying Google. Under the agreement with the plaintiffs, we are going to open up that window for all advertisers, regardless of when the questionable clicks occurred. For all eligible invalid clicks, we will offer credits which can be used to purchase new advertising with Google. We do not know how many will apply and receive credits, but under the agreement, the total amount of credits, plus attorneys fees, will not exceed $90 million. What I am not sure I grok is - is this $90 million set aside only for the plaintiffs in the Lanes' case, or is that the total Google is setting aside for all advertisers, period? I've asked Google for clarification. Seems to me, if they are changing their policy, the claims, and the costs, could go well above $90 million.

I will be following this very closely. The company that I work for does a lot of SEO work through Google and this will be interesting to see how it turns out.

Thoughts on the BlackBerry Settlement

I know this is a bit of old news, and lots of people have already posted their thoughts about it, but I thought I'd write a comment or two about the recent BlackBerry settlement.

On Friday, BlackBerry settled with alleged patent holder NTP for $612 Million. Lots of journalists have written that this is akin to the two employees of NTP winning the lottery. I'm a fairly new user of the BlackBerry, but am coming to the acute understanding of why people refer to it as 'crack'-berry. It's a very addictive little toy.

I think it's good for BlackBerry to settle when they did. With an injunction that threatened to shut down service in the United States, a lot of BB's future business was on the line. Rather than go all in and let the courts decide its fate, BB took the safe route and simply settled with the company claiming to hold the patent to BB's core business model.

Is this right thing for BB to do? That remains debateable. In the short term, BB recently reported that it will fall below earnings estimates and new subscriber estimates. This stems from the fact that many users were wary of using BB because of the impending shutdown. As well, BB may end up raising prices for the devices to help recoup some of the cost of paying NTP. In the long-term, BB will most likely make up for these losses as the use of BB expands from its current base of 4mm users.

Many other providers such as Microsoft, PalmOne and others have taken advantage of the patent distraction that befell BB in recent month by marketing their mobile computing devices. However, in a coup for BB and as first reported in today's WSJ (subscription required), BB received it's biggest endorsement from the US government, when it told a court that many federal officials rely on BB for communication, and shutting down BB immediately would not be feasible.

It should be interesting to see what happens. As mentioned above, I've started using BB and I absolutely love it! In fact, you may see more frequent postings from me because I'll be able to access the Web more frequently!

Skeletons in the Closet

With HBO coming out next week with a new series entitled "Big Love" national media attention has focused once again on the subject of polygamy. When the word is brought up, almost everybody associates it to the practice of Mormons in the state of Utah.

The Mormon Church officially outlawed the practice in the 1890's (with the promise from the Federal Government that if they did, they would receive statehood). However, the practice of polygamy is still alive and well.

Being a resident of this state, I'm fairly sensitive to all the attention that is given to the issue. I'm aware of the snickers, the jokes, all of it. I recently started to question whether or not all of it was justified. My answer: Yes.

The Attorney General of the State of Utah is well aware that the problem exists, however, he is consistant in ignoring the problem. There are several small communities of polygamists throughout Salt Lake City, extending hundreds of miles north and south. Many of these people openly practice the illegal act, without fear of arrest. And why should they? Polygamists haven't been busted en masse in over 50 years.

State Officials are fully aware that the problem exists, but yet they fail to act. Because of this failure, thousands of women and children are stuck in a mysogynistic society, where they are abused by there male husbands, fathers and religious leaders. They have nowhere else to rely on except the state to provide them with welfare subsidies to support themselves and their children.

Why doesn't the Attorney General do anything? Obviously there are drug problems, gang problems, murders, and rapes and other serious crimes. These crimes are caused by criminals who take up most of Utah's resources and prison space. However, this is overlooking the fact that 20,000-30,000 felons are living in Utah without a care in the world.

So why do people in the other 49 states joke about Utahn's being polygamists? It's not because they're ignorant, it's because they understand that people still freely practice polygamy, and nobody is doing anything about it.

The Sports Guy

I'm not sure how many of you read The Sports Guy at espn.com, but he had a great article today. It was an interview that he had with NBA commissioner David Stern. I will syndicate a little of it here, and link to it at the bottom:

Bill Simmons: You know I've advocated you for the presidency, right?

David Stern: I know, I know. Thank you very much.

BS: You're not into it?

DS : [Smiling] I'm not into politics.

BS: The people that know you say you love being the commissioner, you're always going to be the commissioner …

DS: I think you judge that on a day-to-day basis. The job and the opportunities have so changed over the years that I find it continually challenging and stimulating … when you recognize what the untapped potential is for sports, [like] North and South Korea talking about a single team and marching under a single flag in the Beijing Olympics, where but in sports? The other part that we're doing -- the section that deals with digital entertainment, the digital ecosystem, when you think about what's coming in that part of the technology world, where there are going to be 3 billion cell phones by the year 2010, and even they and their successors, which will be just called handheld devices, will be video-enabled, music-enabled, voice-enabled and Internet-enabled … that has enormous implications for everything we do, both as a society and with the NBA. It's in a vacuum, changing day by day. So we've got the technological changes occurring, we have globalization occurring, and we have enormous needs for corporate/social responsibility, so there's really a great opportunity to do well and do good at the same time.

BS: How would you compare that to 1983, when you were taking over?
DS: Look what's happened since 1983. We've gone from three networks or maybe four … I mean, the first network deal I made for cable, which I either fortunately or unfortunately made, was in 1979 (with a network that eventually became USA) for $400,000. In the intervening 20 years or so, we went from 4 million subscribers on cable to 90 million on cable and satellite … we went from five networks to 500 networks. That was the most enormous growth and we rode that growth. That was a river that came running by our door -- actually, it was more like an ocean.
Another thing happened: Right now, the only building in our league that isn't new or rebuilt since 1984 is the Meadowlands, and that's planned for replacement in a couple of years. All of the sudden, we have 30 teams playing in buildings with club seats, suites, video boards, sound systems, I mean, it is almost unfair to compare the experience. And by the way, the TV thing is significant in another way. Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain labored in relative anonymity. I just read some place that Greg Oden has already appeared in two ESPN games.
The third is Michael Jordan, but for a different reason than you might think. Michael Jordan and Nike made sports marketing a consumer product business as well, where teams put their marks on everything from apparel to furniture to hard goods …
BS: But you guys had a little bit to do with that, in terms of marketing players and games? You guys were the first ones that did it, right?

DS: You know, interestingly enough, when I became commissioner, everything I knew I copied from either Major League Baseball promotions or NFL Properties. They were very generous with their time, Bowie Kuhn and Pete Rozelle … the NFL had NFL Films, baseball had MLB productions and MLB Promotions, the NFL had NFL Properties, so it was sort of, "OK, we have all these people doing things in a pretty good way, what could we learn from them?" But it was the Michael Jordan/Nike phenomenon that really let people see that athletes were OK, and black athletes were OK. Defying a previous wisdom -- not only that black athletes wouldn't sell in white America, but that the NBA as a predominantly black sport could not sell in white America. And then sponsors became interested. So all these things came together at the same time.

I mean, in 1985, we invited the Chinese national team -- actually, we didn't really invite them, we just said, "Some day, we hope you'll be here," and we got a telex saying, "we accept your invitation" [laughs] -- and I remember thinking, "Where are we gonna raise the $250,000 to cover this tour?" And while they were on the plane, Kaliber, the nonalcoholic beverage for Guinness, agreed to a deal with us that allowed us to cover the expenses. It wasn't always that we had a blue chip [sponsor] lined up … sponsors began looking at sports, or at least looking at us. So those three things, the marketing, the arena and the television were huge, because I refuse to say that Player X of today is better than Elgin, Wilt, Willis, Bill Russell, Havlicek, Harry Gallatin …

BS: The Horse! That was your guy, right?
DS: Yeah, that was my guy.
BS: When you took over, the number one problem was drugs, in terms of the perception of what was going on, as well as the fighting …
DS: By the way, people screw up the timing -- remember, I didn't become commissioner until 1984. The best thing that happened to us was that in April of 1983, we made a collective bargaining agreement with the players, and we came up with the salary cap for the first time. And there was more of a notion of a partnership between the owners and players. And separately, we came up with the anti-drug plan. Back then, people really appreciated the fact that the players and the owners were addressing both the financial issues and the drugs issues. It wasn't so much that we cleaned it up, because it wasn't as bad as everyone said it was, it was that we addressed it. At the time, everyone said, "Oh, it's the NBA, too much money, players making $250,000, that's ridiculous, they're black … "
BS: The drug thing was pretty bad though. You guys had a lot of good guys wiped out. Spencer Haywood, Micheal Ray [Richardson], Bernard King, David Thompson …
DS: Everyone was saying it was only us -- it was in the schools, in the prisons, the hospitals, the law firms, it was an item of public and foreign policy. I mean, America was in the grip of something, we were sort of the harbinger of what what happening, that young men were engaged in using drugs. No question. And our guys, we happened to have a young age base, our demographic fit it. So as a result, we have one of the earliest employee-assistance programs on the subject. It ultimately got outvoted, but at the time, it was the first attempt to deal honestly with the problem.
BS: So, looking at the problems since you took over -- the fighting and the drugs -- that got settled, the games got a little too chippy in the late-'80s, you fixed that …
DS: If we did one thing wrong, and we did a lot wrong, but we should have moved on the game itself, [how physical] it got, and honestly, how slow it got.
BS: You tried to do some things, some of them didn't work, like the 3-point line was too close.
DS: Yeah, the notion there was, "Well it's all about the coaches, and there's nothing we can do," and then we said that couldn't be the answer, so …
BS: And then in the early-'90s, the biggest problem was these guys coming right in and making $40 [million] or $50 million, there's like a whole lost generation of guys where the incentive was removed for them right away.
DS: I don't buy the incentive issue …
BS: Really?
DS: I never bought the public's view. I think that players play, and they compete, and it's not about incentives. More important was that it became a game -- the contract negotiations, what agent could do better for his player than somebody else's, and the economic model turned to such craziness, that you couldn't look with a straight face at anyone who wanted to invest [in a team]. And that was an issue.

Continue reading here. (Note: Login may be required after 60 days of this post).

Calling Out Mark Cuban

I've been meaning to blog about Mark Cuban for awhile, but finally got around to it tonight. Let me start off by saying that I respect Mark Cuban- he's a smart businessman who's done a hellava job turning arround the Dallas Mavericks. (Ed's Note: For the sake of sparing my readers, I'm not going to rehash Mark Cuban's life story here, but if you want to research it, click here).

For those of you who don't know, Mark runs his mouth and his blog at blogmaverick.com . Graphically, it's not a very pretty site to look at, but that's not the point. The point of that blog (as well as this blog for that matter) is for Mark to run his mouth about anything and everything he wants to talk about. At face value, I don't have a problem with that, as I do the same thing. But Mark goes out of his way to take cheap shots at the leaders of specific companies, specifically, CEO Patrick Byrne of Overstock.com.

Now, I'm not going to get into the specifics of why he argues the way he does against Byrne, however, I will say that when it's Mark Cuban who's writing analysis on why or why not people should buy a specific stock, or if they should short a specific stock, and it's Mark Cuban the billionaire who not only influences the markets when he moves money but he also influences the money moving decisions of hundreds, if not thousands of loyal fans and blog readers.

Mark is fairly blunt about that he's short 20,000 shares of OSTK. He goes out of his way to place Overstock.com and Patrick Byrne in an unfriendly light. However, when he mentions that several times over the course of a few months about how many shares he's short and why people shouldn't invest in Overstock.com and considering the clout that he obviously has over his fans and the investing community at large, should this be an violation of SEC rules?

Some of Mark's thoughts are rational, however most of them are only spilled on his blog to serve some self-serving interest that he has (such as his rants about HDTV, his movie theaters, his movie production company, etc).

Mark's only opinion is that his opinion is right and he is never wrong (trust me, I know first-hand after trading emails with him a couple of times). Part of what's good and decent about anyone is the ability to recognize when they are wrong. Unfortunately for Mark, he has NEVER been able to do this.

Update to Monday's Post

We interrupt this broadcast to let you know that Dick Cheney is now responsible for causing his hunting companion to suffer a heart attack after he shot him on Saturday. What happens if this guy ends up dying? Does Cheney go up on involantary manslaughter charges?

John Battelle's Blog

I'm not sure how many of you actually read my blog, but at the very least, be sure to check out John Battelle's blog. As some of you may have read in my other blog, I met John at a conference in Santa Barbara a few months ago and just finished reading his book "The Search".

In any case, John recently blogged about what Google, Yahoo, MSN et al. are doing in China. It's definitely worth the read. Check it out here.

We goin' Wabbit Huntin'..

Obviously, the big story over the weekend was the fact that VP Dick Cheney accidently shot lawyer and friend Harry Whittington in the face in a hunting trip over the weekend.

What may emerge in the coming days as the bigger story over the next two days is exactly when the White House decided to admit that there was an incident to report. MSNBC.com is reporting that the shooting occurred Saturday night, however, the information was not replaced to the public until Sunday.

Two things at issue here, first the Vice President of the United States shooting someone, and second, the speed of which the news was released to the press. I'll address the second issue first.

In an era where we have blackberry's, cellular phones (let alone landline phones), laptops, fax machines, overnight express package delivery, and high speed Web access, it's kinda hard to believe that this news wasn't reported earlier then 12 hours after the fact. Hell, I probably could have distributed a little yellow sticky quicker than the White House telling press about this situation. It's really ridiculous and quite frankley, unprofessional.

Second, the VP of the United States shot somebody! This is huuugggeee news. Granted it was an accident, and it was on a hunting trip, but it isn't every day that the second (or third) most powerful man in the World can shoot someone and get away with it. I recall logging onto MSNBC.com yesterday to see the headline "VP Cheney Shoots Someone!" The first thought that entered my mind is that he finally had had enough of people giving him crap about Iraq so he whipped out one of his Security Detail's 9mm and shut him up.

However, after reading the story I learned that the VP was on a hunting trip and misfired his weapon in the direction of a lawyer. I find it really interesting that this hasn't been a bigger story. In any case, it should be great late night TV fodder for weeks.

Another Quirky Bushism

President Bush today dropped a bomb (figuratively, everybody, figuratively) when he announced that Al Qaeda was planning a major operation post 9/11 inside the United States back in 2002.

Today he released details of the report. Some of those details purport that hijackers from a SouthEastern Asian country were going to storm an email and were going to use shoe bombs to blow up the cockpit door, take control of the plane and then crash the plane into the then called Liberty Tower.

President Bush then conveniently tied everything together by implying that the the case was cracked by his outstanding domestic spying efforts (my words, not his).

As you can imagine, I have quite the opinion of this and lots of questions:

-If the domestic spying was so effective, who were these alleged hijackers? Have they been captured? Is the CIA sitting outside there door?

-Was anybody (of non-need to know importance) informed of this? If not, why not? Interestingly, even the MAYOR of Los Angeles was not informed of this plot! You're telling me that nobody bothered to pick up a phone, drop an email, or paste a little yellow sticky on the mayors computer, letting him know what the hell was going on?!

-Why wasn't this brought up sooner, say before the New York Times article about this adminstrations domestic spying program? Surely, since it's been a couple years since this event was to occur, it would be okay to let us know about the evil plot.

I would challenge the administration to the point to say that I believe their hiding more than their telling us. By doing this, they could be possibly be putting the country in greater danger than it is already in.

Freedom of Speech

Earlier this week, Denmark decided to get the Islamic world all riled up by allowing a cartoon character representing the sacred Muslim Prophet Muhammad. Ever since then, Muslims in Islamic countries from the Far East to the Mid East have been protesting (some violently) the release of the cartoons. Iran, has even gone so far as to cut of trade and economic ties with Denmark.

The whole issue boils down to freedom of speech and where do people need to draw the line. Obviously, in the great country of the USA, we can go pretty far when it comes to speech (except when it comes to yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater, as my high-school Civics teacher used to say). But, is it right to poke fun at, or make jokes of something or someone that some ethnicities revere?

I'm not going to go on a rant on what should or shouldn't be said in any situation. As far as speech goes, I'm pretty convservative (that is to say, I'm happy with the 1st ammendment and the way it was written). But I think there's a little thing called tact and diplomacy that one should keep in mind when they are speaking, or in this case drawing.

Considering the fact that most of the Western World is in a "global conflict" with Terror, and given the fact that the most recent participants who are causing this so-called Terror happen to be of the the Islamic faith, it's probably not a good idea to give them reason to continue their perpetuate their distorted views of the world. By releasing this cartoon, Denmark sparked an increased outcry in the Muslim World. Muslims hold Muhammad to be a very, important, revered, and sacred person. To publicly make light of him (let alone to display his image which Islam frowns upon) only adds fuel to an already hot fire.

I understand that the artist of the cartoon and the editor of the newspaper were simply trying to exercise their right at free speech, which is fine. But given the plight that the Western world currently finds itself, I find this release a little untimely and very unsensitive.

Trouble at eBay?

There was an intersting story in the NY Times (The article in the Times was so poorly written, I won't even link to it. Such a rarity for the Times as it is such a great paper. I digress.) this week about eBay being sued by Tiffany's alledging that eBay is allowing fake Tiffany Merchandise on their website. The lawsuit is alleging that eBay is essentially turning a blind eye the the fake merchandise and taking in a pretty sum off of the conterfeit sales.

Now, I'm not going to take sides, but I'll lay my cards on the table. I used to work at eBay. I worked their for four years. I know the ins, the outs and all the in betweens. eBay's cop-out and what I perceive as their defense to this lawsuit is simply "Hey, we don't police our site." My answer to that is: hogwash.

eBay goes to great lengths to police their site-ever try to look at pornographic pictures on the core site? You won't find any. This is because their are constant searches done on the site (either automatic or manual) that go through and basically look for all the 'illegal' auctions.

eBay also claims that Tiffany is working through eBay's VeRO program (Verified Rights and Owners). This program simply helps high end manufacturers of goods maintain the dignified brand name when their merchandise is sold through secondary avenues such as eBay.

When I was at eBay, they had three shifts of fifteen people who worked to enforce the rules of VeRO, and constantly looked for items on the site that violated eBay's VeRO policy. Now, obviously it's hard to police every corner of the eBay site, just by the sheer magnitude of the number of items that are sold, it's nearly impossible to find every nefarious auction. However, eBay's blanket statement of 'We don't police our site' is plain and simple BS.

Even with all the policing that eBay does, there is still a large amount of fake material sold on their site. In specific regards to Tiffany's, I would say anywhere between 80-90% of the items are fake.

I would be very, very surprised to see this case actually go to trial. However, if eBay decides to settle, it can expect a whole onslaught of lawsuits similar to this one.