Does Porn Lead to Crime?

Interesting article in this week's Salt Lake City Weekly (strangely, Utah's most credible news source, though it does lean a bit left. I digress.). It's about the myth regarding whether or not pornography causes criminal acts.

A lot of ignorant folks (read: conservatives) feel it does, though, as usual, they lack the scientific proof to proove their point. To perpetuate this perspective, recently, there was a murder a five year old girl here about a month and a half ago. The accused killer of the girl blamed pornography for driving him to commit this crime.

As the article mentions, instead of taking responsibility for the crimes they committed, these people often look for something to blame. In this case, (and strangely enough, in lots of cases) they blame pornography for causing their shortfall.

Right, just like the time I received a speeding ticket - it wasn't my fault, I told the police officer, I just finished playing Grand Theft Auto and couldn't separate virtual reality from the real thing.

Read More: Pornography, Salt Lake City, Utah Press

Apple's Buyin' You Off....Bitch

Apple pulled a Blackberry today and and paid off Creative in an effort to resolve a patent lawsuit.

The suit resulted from Apple's iPod music player and the fact that the navigation click-wheel was infringing on Creative's music navigation wheel on it's Zen .mp3 player. The settlement effectively ends all lawuits the two companies with each other. Interestingly, if other companies license Creative's technology, Apple will get a cut of its settlement returned.

Read More: Apple, iPod

Racist Utah Senators

This won't be a long post because the article pretty much speaks for itself. One of the State Senators of Utah commented today that the Supreme Court was "wrong" when it decided Brown v. Board. Here's a quote:

"Well, I think Brown v. Board of Education is wrong to begin with."

And here's a link to the article.

Read More: Racism, Utah, Salt Lake Tribune

Is it Time to Say Goodbye?

Let's face it, if running eBay were a beauty contest, Meg Whitman would, under no circumstances, be the CEO. Fortunately for her, (and many CEO's) running companies is all about smarts and has almost nothing to do with looks. Running any company is a difficult job, and growing a company at break-neck speed is even more of a difficult job. Meg has done a great job in the almost 10 years she has been running at eBay. She has taken it from a one room office to a multi-continent online powerhouse.

But, as with all companies, things change. Companies grow, people leave, investors demand supersonic growth, and simply put, everybody gets sick of the same old same.

For years everybody has been satisfied with eBay. The growth was there, the expansion was there, and most importantly, there was always a profit and a huge stock price at the end of the day. However, recently, eBay has experienced some challenges. Key people are leaving, the stock price is dropping, Skype isn't bringing in money, and today, some sellers on the site started wondering publicly if it was time for Meg to go.

Fortunately for Meg, she has proven herself time and time again as a very capable CEO. She has been able to meet the expectations of customers, Analysts and stockholders, quarter after quarter and year after year.

Also, she has the backing of many Wall Street Analysts and bankers. Most of the projections that they hold for eBay are under the assumption that she will be running the company. Should she decide to leave (or should the company merge), lots of those rosy projections may be revised downward.

That said, there is a lot to be said for getting new blood into the mix. Last year, Meg briefly flirted with Disney for an opportunity to be the head person over there. Her interest in that job may reflect waning interest in eBay. Also, eBay's growth in it's core domestic business is slowing, perhaps someone new would be able to revitalize interest in the Auction giant both here and abroad.

Whatever happens, nobody can dispute what she did for eBay. She not only managed the company through one of the worst economic periods in our history, but she continues to succeed in managing one of the top retail sites in the world.

Read More: eBay, Meg Whitman

How To Upset Your Neighbors in Utah

This is how we roll in Utah..well at least according the Salt Lake Tribune.

Read More: Utah, Salt Lake Tribune

This Sounds Familiar...

From MSNBC:

Chilton said the United States had a duty to secure “the entire space
domain not just for our own military but for our allies and for the benefit of
the free world.”

Didn't I hear the same line in Star Wars?

Read More: MSNBC, Star Wars

Google's New Homepage

Can anyone figure out the change on Google's homepage today?

Read More: Google

Google's New Coupons

In a not-so-surprising move, Google will now offer coupons from local merchants so users can physically print them out and redeem them at their respective merchants.

The good part about this new program is that local merchants will be able to increasingly move from traditional advertising to the online realm by giving searchers more relevant, local discounts. For example a local hair salon will be able to display a coupon offering $5 off your next haircut when you redeem this ad, when a user searches for "hair salon's" in a given area/zip code.

The bad part about this is Affiliate Markerters probably will not see much much in the way another revenue stream. This deal appears to only involve Google (and their project partner Valpak) and the merchants who will be offering the coupons. Which isn't surprising given Google's recent changes to it's adwords policy.

Read More: Advertising, Google

New Ideas for Unemployment

The WSJ had a great article today about how a French Telecom is helping battle unemployment. Instead of giving people notice that they will be laid off with severance packages and a big middle finger for their trouble, the Telecom is helping employees do something useful by helping them start small businesses.

They do everything from helping to draft business plans, and helping entrepreneurs secure funding for their small business. It will also help employees get more education if they need it, and they have worked with other public-sector employers to take in its workers. If the project fails within three years, the employee can return to the company. The most amazing thing to me about the experiment so far is that one in six of the new projects have failed.

This is a great idea and I'm unsure as to why this hasn't caught on with companies like Ford, GM, and other companies who from time to time have to dump several thousands of employees (Answer: because they're dumb ). Obviously, it would take time and money but the investment would be miniscule to what could be a potential boon for the new small business owner, the company, and the economy.

Read More: WSJ, Unemployment, Small Business

Quote of the Day

The following is taken from the blog dooce.com:

If you haven’t ever heard a Utah accent all you need to know is that if you
had to listen to 30 seconds of a local newscast you’d offer a blow job to the
first person who volunteered to stab you in the ears.

Couldn't agree more.

Read More: Quote of the Day, Utah Press, Dooce

Uncovering a Plot, and Our Response

Lots of thoughts raced through my mind this morning as all of us discovered the latest terrorism plot that started in Heathrow today. A plot that if properly carried out, would have cost (possibly) thousands of people their lives.

I was really disappointed in President Bush's 'lack' of response to the 'news' of the day (he actually knew what was going on as early as three days ago).

By far, the best article analyzing our response the plot (so far) has been from Newsweek columnist Christopher Dickey. He counters Bush's assertion that we are now "safer than we were pre-9/11" by saying:

But the long list of horrific attacks around the world since 9/11, from
Bali to Madrid, Casablanca to London, Amman to Istanbul, should make anyone
think again about such claims. So should the near misses. “Shoe bomber” Richard
Reid fumbled his matches when he tried to blow himself up aboard an American
Airlines flight in December 2001. But he came close, and if he’d
succeeded, hundreds of people would have died with all traces of evidence lost
in the wintry Atlantic. The plot revealed today would have killed more than
1,000 people. By some accounts there would have been three terrible waves of
carnage: first three planes, then three more, then three more. Again, over the
high seas.

I really couldn't have said it better myself. I could really go on and on ad naseaum about the many things that we could have proactively done, but for the sake of time, I'll close with this: the fact of the matter is, today clearly showed that we still have a lot of room to improve as far as our national security is concerned. It's been five years since the United States was violently and verociously attacked, and this administration has failed to deliver on its promise to capture those responsible. Instead, they decided to invade a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11. Ask yourself this question: does that make sense?

Read More: Heathrow, Bush, Dickey

Prostituting Craigslist

It looks like our crack law enforcement officials have finally figured out how prostitution works in the 21st century. Four women got busted near DWI in Maryland after a bunch of hard working (read: lazy) officers found their ads on the monster classified ad site.

Frankly speaking, in these perilous times of terrorism, students on the loose, and the recent DC crime wave, it's good to see that time is still being made to clamp down on the world's oldest profession.

Read More: Craigslist, Prostitution, Terrorism

eBay's Dropping Stock Price

Has anybody noticed eBay's stock price lately? This thing is dropping like a rock. As mentioned in this blog earlier, it really hasn't been good for shareholders (not to mention option holders) of eBay.

The question that comes to everybody's mind is why? Well, there's no short answer to that question, but, I'll try to give a reasonable explanation:

- First, word on the street is the core Auction business for eBay is slowing. Unfortunately, I don't have a link to share about this, only an 'insider' who happens to work at the online giant.

-Executives are jumping ship left and right. First, Jeff Jordan bounced and then, there was an announcement that Maynard Webb would be leaving before the end of the year. When asked if she was leaving by Maria Bartiromo on a recent edition of Wall Street Week, CEO Meg Whitman simply shrugged her shoulders, smiled and said "I'm in it for the long-haul".

- eBay's recent snub of Google and refusing to allow sellers to use Google Checkout as an online payment method didn't score any points for it with people outside the company.

- Lastly, eBay recently raised prices for users of its online stores program.

All of these issues (at least IMHO) seem to contribute to a dropping stock prices. It should be intersting to see how low it will go.

Read More: eBay, Google, Meg Whitman

Google Thinks MySpace is Hot...or Something..

Google dropped $900 Million today for in an advertising deal and to become the sole search provider for MySpace. Somewhere, Rupert Murdoch is sitting back in a chair, lighting a Cuban, and saying to himself, "Suckers."

So what does Google get out this deal? Sure, they get to add their logo to MySpace search boxes and they get to serve PPC ads when Fox runs out of ads to serve, but is the deal worth nearly a Bill? Currently, MySpace is the second most trafficked website on the Web (trailing only Yahoo) in the United States, but who's to say that will stay that way?

Call me a cynic, but I'm not sure I agree with Google's logic on this one. Sure, MySpace is a great site, and lots of people use it, but how is it sustainable, and more importantly, how are they going to grow it? Not only that, but what happens if a few state governments decide to start regulating how MySpace is used.

Eric, Sergei and Co. were fortunate (i.e. smart enough) to make sure that Fox's MySpace meet certain traffic goals along the way in order to get paid.

Read More: Google, MySpace, Fox

Rambling Reading

A couple thoughts about what I've been reading lately:

- Jigga's got a new album dropping this winter .

- eBay's stock price is blowing chunks (more to come on this next week).

- Israel still denies it's collaborating with the US to take over the world.

- News flash: Home sales are down. Someone clue in the Salt Lake Tribune.

Read More: Jay-Z, Israel, eBay, Housing

Republish Humpday: MySpace Tom's Porno Past

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

WWIII

I spent a lot of time over the weekend contemplating the latest drama in the Middle East involving Israel, Hezbollah, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, et al. Some of the questions that I've been asking myself are mostly rhetorical in nature, however I think they are valid. Some examples:

-Why is Israel reacting the way it is? Sure, initially it had two soldiers brutally kidnapped and seven soldiers killed, never a good thing, but is right for them to retaliate in the manner that it did? I put my country in its shoes - if the US had two soldiers kidnapped by Iran (which it had), would the United States respond by bombing them? I can honestly answer that question no. Granted, bombing Iran in such a scenario would definitely be an option, but I think that we (the US) would respond with more diplomatic measures before becoming so hostile.

-What are the long-term implications of the Israeli action? There was an interesting interview on NPR this morning (sorry no link) that asked a similar question. And the respondont answered that because of Israel's action, the status quo in Israel could never return. I disagree. Although Israel's retaliation in this situation is a bit harsh, I think that the situation could be quickly diffused Israel stopped the bombing, and the hostages were immediately returned.

One of the most interesting questions that was asked over the weekend was asked on a Sunday morning talk show to Senator John McCain. The question was whether or not Sen. McCain believed we were in the middle of World War III. He answered that given the number of countries involved in conflict, and the fact that there is no end in sight, that yes, history will ultimately refer to this as WWIII.

In my opinion, this 'war' is small potatoes compared to WWI and WWII. Essentially you, there are no more than 10 countries that have actually exchanged gunfire (though the words Cold World War, would be very applicable). Could the violence in the Middle East explode into a legitimate World War? No question. The reference to the Middle East as a powder keg is no coincidence.

Rocky Balboa

Not sure if you have seen this, but the new Rocky movie looks fantastic!

No Surfing For You!

In Boston, cafe owners are getting quite upset at the locals who are taking advantage of WiFi access in coffee shops, but not purchasing much while they surf the web. Some have even gone to the point of shutting off their WiFi or kicking web surfers out of their shops.

I understand that nerds taking bandwith from legitimate (read: paying) customers is cause for concern, but owners shouldn't get their panties in a bunch over the issue. I'm fine with the fact that customers much purchase something in order to use the WiFi that's available, but I think they're going a little overboard if they're kicking customers out of the store who spend a couple hours surfing the Web.

The fact that people are at your store (instead of say, Starbucks) should be a cause for celebration for you - and give you some sort of sense of entitlement. Let's face it, people in your stores are a hundred times more likely to buy something from you than someone who is not in your store.

Einstein the Player...Not the Hater

Today it was revealed that Einstein was not quite the loner that he made himself out to be. Besides providing us with all of our modern wisdom on relativity, and space, time and matter as we now currently understand it,he was also busy hooking up with some of Europe's finest ladies.

Good for him. Until this came out, I thought all he did was sit around trying to figure out ways to make our society better.

Cha Cha Changes...

A story that received far too little attention today was the fact that Jeff Jordan walked away from eBa -- err PayPal --err one big online marketing company today. Jordan was with eBay since 1999 and recently was given the task as President of the PayPal unit.

There is rampant speculation as to why Jordan is leaving. Could he not handle the heat from Google's new payment/checkout feature (along those lines, great story today from AuctionBytes about how eBay won't allow sellers to use Google Checkout)? Is he really leaving to spend "more time with his family." Jordan was speculated to have be CEO-in-training for the time when Meg Whitman decides to call it today.

ex-CFO Rajiv Dutta takes over for Jordan at PayPal (interestingly, after only 2 months as president at lackluster Skype).

After approximately one week of having a legitimate threat to it's (cough, cough monopolistic) online payment system, two words describe how eBay is taking it's new-found competition: not well.

Who Killed Kenny? Enron

As to be expected, Enron frontman Kenneth Lay had a major heart-attack today. Why this was a big surprise in the news is very curious to me. This guy was facing life in prison, was convicted of several felonies, and is only five years removed from fumbeling away almost $60 Billion dollars and destroying thousands of lives in the process. A heart attack in this case should have been expected.

Looking back at Enron, it's kind of amazing that the whole thing unfolded under all of our noses the way that it did, without anyone doing much about it. Sure people knew about it, but ultimately money kept them quiet. I'm not trying to sound naive - I understand that money makes the World go 'round - all I'm saying is that it's unfortunate that we as a society have sucommed to sacraficing our ethics in exchange for a few extra zero's in our pay check.

Forgive me as I am in a bit of a philisophical, cynical and fatalistic mood tonight. I would be interested in hearing the comments of Plato, Socrates and others on the current plight of our society. We pay athletes millions of dollars, all so we can be entertained for a couple hours. Yet, at the same time, a teacher somewhere in America just finished spending 11 hours trying to teach American Civics to a bunch of unappreciative high-school students, and is trying to figure out how in the hell he's going to pay for the Prada bag his wife just purchased on a whim.

Don't get me wrong, normally I'm a capitalist who whole-heartedly believes in every last word that Adam Smith wrote, however, I believe that somewhere along the lines we may have missed the point when it comes to who gets paid what in our society, and those who pirate money shouldn't always get away with it.

Rambling Reading

Didn't post for a week because I was on a business trip and my WiFi connection was spotty at best. In any case, here's what I've been reading

-A conservative gone limp.

-Sports Guy loves YouTube.

-The New York Times has a drug problem.

-The New York Times should be criminally prosecuted. (Note: I love the NYT)

-Another pro for drinking coffee.

-Warren Buffet is giving his money away (to charity).

-You can't ask Ask.com about everything.


That's it for now.

Republish Thursday II: Memo to the RIAA: Don't Screw This One Up Too

From John Battelle:

According to this report, which is light on confirming details, the RIAA is considering action against the YouTubes of the world, because there are so many videos of kids hamming it up to songs where rights have not been cleared. Like this one, for example, on Google Video.
Good f'ing lord, RIAA. Wake up. This is how we use music in the real world. Get over yourselves.

Well said, John. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Republish Thursday: Don't Fuck withy MySpace Tom - Literally

Today from ValleyWag:

If earlier reports are true, that Tom Anderson sure
loves the ladies. But the co-founder and public face of MySpace doesn't always impress, according to an acquaintance.
One of Tom's lovely ladies, says the tipster, left a between-the-sheets romp
unsatisfied. And she was anything but quiet about it. And Tom wouldn't take that
lying down. He cock-blocked her the hard way -- every time she built a MySpace
profile, Mr. Humps-a-lot kicked her off the site. Deleted her whole profile.
"You'll never sleep in this town again!"
It might be a harsh punishment, but
hey, the guy has a reputation to keep. It's not so bad -- who hasn't locked an
ex-lover out of the house?

Hmm..Seems like a great guy.

Another Day, Another Thinking Liberal Fired in Utah

Jeffrey Neilsen, a non-tenured professor at BYU was recently told that his contract would not be renewed (read: fired) because he recently wrote an op-ed piece in the Salt Lake Tribune that spoke out against the LDS Church's position on Gay Marriage.

For those of you that live outside this bubble called Salt Lake, let me bring you up to speed: a few weeks ago, the LDS Church demanded that all Bishops (think: pastors, priests) read the following statement during Sunday services:

We are informed that the United States Senate will on June 6, 2006, vote on an amendment to the Federal constitution designed to protect the traditional institution of marriage.
We, as the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, have repeatedly set forth our position that the marriage of a man and a woman is the only acceptable marriage relationship.
In 1995 we issued a Proclamation to the World on this matter, and have repeatedly reaffirmed that position.
In that proclamation we said: "We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."
We urge our members to express themselves on this urgent matter to their elected representatives in the Senate.

Because BYU is a privately owned institution of the LDS Church, it is generally expected of its faculty and staff that they will not have any opinions that differ from the 'Official' position of the LDS Church, and if they do have a different opinion, they are expected to hold those opinions silent. Unfortunately, for this professor, he will no longer be teaching philosophy at the tremendous institution that is called by some "The Harvard of the East"

Folks (specifically, morons in Utah), people in life will occassionally not agree with the LDS Church 100% of the time. When they do, that does NOT give you the right to dissassociate with them, nor does that give you the right to end their employment.

I empathize with Mr. Neilsen; however, I'm sure he realizes that better days are ahead of him. Perhaps a real school that allows the free flow of ideas and idealogical thought to flow freely will offer him a tenured position.

eBay Getting Wiki wit' It

eBay announced they will start promoting more UGC (User Generated Content) by announcing the use of a Wiki.

This is a great idea, and actually one that I discussed a couple months ago with former eBay executive.

The purpose of the Wiki will allow buyers and sellers to describe more about what their purpose is on eBay (which I have no doubt that it will replace the lame 'About Me' pages) and will allow eBay to seamlessly generate more content that will get picked up by Google and Yahoo more easily.

Click here to check out the article in Forbes.

Bye Bye to Net Neutrality

The House of Representatives yesterday passed up the opportunity to keep the Web neutral, essentially giving cable and phone companies the green light to charge users of their broadband services more depending on how many users are coming to their website.

This is kind of a big deal as phone companies will now be able to give certain favored (read "high-paying customers") versus those who don't pay quite as much (and thus causing them 'access problems').

Google, eBay, Amazon, IAC, etc all teamed up and lobbied Congressmen in the Nation's Capitol to try and get them to keep the Web neutral. Unforutnately, it didn't work. The phone/cable companies (i.e. AT&T, Comcast, PacBell, etc) essentially now control who sees what on the Web and at what price.

Our trip down the slippery slope continues.

Stock Market Doldrums

Anybody notice the hhhoorrriiibbbllleee market performance lately? Just in case you've been living in cave for the last month and a half our so, the Market is down approximately 800 points.

Lots of reasons one could assume as towhy the market is down, for example:

-Iran's on again, off again decision to suspend nuclear enrichment

-Interest Rate worries

-High Oil Prices (currently hovering on $70)

- Continuing uncertainty in Iraq.

Etc, etc, etc. It's pretty east to say that the market was overdue for a correction, following a torrid rise above the 11,000 mark to 11,600. However, there doesn't seem to be a particular sticking point as to what's causing the downturn.

The WSJ offered some helpful suggestions as to what to invest in while the market continues it's spiral downwards. They were traditional products - toothpaste, oil, food, utilities, clothing companies - the basic necessities that everyone still needs, even in market downturns. Of course most investors should already have these stocks if they're fully diversified.

Rambling Reading

Because today was such a slow news day (and because it's something that I'm going to start doing more often), I thought that I'd pass along a few news articles that I found interesting:

-The NBA Finals start on June 8, with two newbies to the Finals, the Dallas Mavericks and the Miami Heat. Yahoo had a story with five reasons that you should care.

-A 15-year old qualified for the U.S. Open next week.

-Mitt Romney promises that polygamy won't be legalized, but universal health care might become mandatory, if/when he becomes president.

-Just in case you hadn't heard by now, today was 6/6/06 and a good day if you were in the marketing profession.

-A 22 year old New York kid robbed (read: scammed, punked) investors out of $7 Million.

Republish Thursday: Big Brother is Still Watching

Incredible story from USA Today:

Top law enforcement officials have asked leading Internet companies to keep histories of the activities of Web users for up to two years to assist in criminal investigations of child pornography and terrorism, the Justice Department said Wednesday.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller outlined their request to executives from Google, Microsoft, AOL, Comcast, Verizon and others Friday in a private meeting at the Justice Department. The department has scheduled more discussions as early as Friday. Last week's meeting was first reported by CNET, an online news service.

Wow. I really can't say anything to that, except, happy web-browsing!

AIDS

There's currently a fantastic edition of Frontline running right now regarding AIDS. It's gone to great lengths at describing the history of AIDS and the many problems that it causes around the world.

Growing up where I did, AIDS wasn't generally a problem we concerned ourselves with in social conversation. I recall hearing a little bit about it when I was in 6th Grade, but still didn't fully grasp what the disease really meant.

Even in the mid and late 1990s, I understood how AIDS was passed person to person, but again, owing to the fact that I lived in Theological State, I didn't have to spend much time worrying about contracting it.

The Frontline Documentry has really opened my eyes about the problem that AIDS caused people here in the US as well as people in Africa, Europe and Asia. The truly sad thing is I'm sure there are hundreds of thousands of other people who like me, will never believe that AIDS will affect them.

What do we do about this disease? For the last twenty years, scientists have been promising a vaccine for AIDS, only to fail us time and time again. Billions of dollars have been spent in research in trying to find a cure. However, nothing has been very successful.

And what about the drugs that are 'somewhat' effective in fighting against HIV (the virus that causes AIDS)? Usually any drugs that are effective come at an extreme price - only people with money can afford them. Case in point: Magic Johnson.

In 1991, Johnson announced that he had to retire from the NBA owing to his acquiring of HIV. 15 years after announcing this, he looks a live and very well week after week while working as an Television announcer for the NBA. What's more, he is a very successful businessman.

Is it right that only people with money can live?

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.