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.

Google drops a Google

Well, not really, but I always wondered what it would be like to actually see that as a headline. In any case, Google announced earnings today after the closing bell and they didn't meet eps targets that were set by many analysts.

Most analysts questioned (believe me, that's all it is) that Google would earn $1.76; however, they came in at an (post-charity donation) adjusted $1.54. Profits overall were up an astounding 80%!! Nonetheless, most shareholders sold in after-market trading like they thought the end of Web Advertising was imminent.

Shares were down as much as $68.17 (15.8%) in after-hours trading, the close price on the day was $432.66. A quote that I found interesting from the AP post:

The amount of shareholder wealth shed by Google during extended trading exceeds the current market value of General Motors Corp.

Wow!! Amazing to try and wrap your head around that statement. A couple of factors leading to Googles shortfall is the fact that costs for Sales and Marketing almost doubled from $76 Million in 2004 to $155 Million in 2005. The company also added nearly 700 people in Q4.

Is this the end of Google? Doubt it. Considering how many people do searches earch day (and the constant rate of growth of that number) also combined with the fact that more and more companies are increasing their spend on Search Advertising, Google's going to make a lot of money for many years to come.

Some things that I think are challenges for the company are:
-Increasing S&M costs.
-Expanding Internationally (see recent moves into China)
-Strategic Acquisitions (Rumors that Google was going to buy Napster are allegedly untrue)
-Click Fraud (By far, I think this represents the biggest threat to Google's business)

Should be interesting to see what happens.

Finally Another Hip-Hop Rivalry!!

Only, I wouldn't call this one a 'rivalry' in the traditional sense of the term, because the word rivalry implies that there is some sort of competition going on (which in this case, there's clearly not). I only blog about this article because it's all my friends and I have recently been talking about. Recently, Killa Cam (aka Cam'ron) produced and distributed a recent recording that slams Jigga-man Jay Z.

In his recent track "You Got It" Cam accuses Jay of essentially cock blocking him from becoming an exec at Rocafella Records. He also blames Jay of cheating former business partner Damon Dash. Killa Cam also takes a couple cheap shots at Jay's girlfriend Beyonce.

Let's get a couple things straight: first, Cam is not even close to being in the same league as Jay-Z. Can you name even five decent songs that Cam has ever recorded? Let alone five songs that made it into heavy rotation more than once? Second, Jay-Z is the CEO of a fairly prestegious record company (Def Jam). Third, Jay's (reported) $300 Million bank account compared to 'Killa' Cam's pink Range that he COULDN'T EVEN SELL ON EBAY!!

Recently, Jay responded to all Cam's hub-bub by basically calling it 'trash'. But it still leaves the question, does Jigga retaliate? Althought it's probably a safe bet that Jay doesn't do anything obvious to fuel the rivalry, I'd be willing to bet he drops a verse (or two) just to put Cam in is place. It should be fun to see how this one plays out.

Kobe's Great Game

Kobe Bryant had the game of his life last night by dropping 81 points on the Toronto Raptors. My response: Congratulations Kobe.

I'll be honest, I'm no longer a big fan of Bryant. Don't get me wrong, he used to be my favorite player. But after the trial, the spat with Shaq, and his endless ballhogging, I just can't see how he adds value to the Lakers or the League.

My favorite Kobe moment happened earlier this year. The Lakers were playing the Jazz on December 1. My buddies and I had courtside seats. We were giving Kobe crap the whole game. Finally, my friend calls Kobe 'Pippi Longstocking' (because of the leggings) that Kobe was wearing underneath his shorts. Kobe laughs, comes over and says 'Nice one. I haven't heard that one all year'.

Another time during the game, Kobe had the ball on the block, and I yelled out 'Kobe, you can't make that like MJ could'. He proceeded to drain a fallaway jump shot. He then turned around and gave me the look of death. Good times.

I used to follow the Lakers quite often when I lived in SoCal, but ever since I moved back, I've found it harder to keep track of them (except when Kobe drops 81 points in a game). I'm not quite sure how well the Lakers will do this year. I think they'll get into the playoffs, but I doubt they get by the first round. Too much Kobe, no team chemistry, and no inside presence (no Phil, Chris Mihm is not an inside presence).

Osama, How We Missed Thee...

OBL, (or UBL as Fox News likes his intitials) poked out from his cave to say hello to the civilized world today and drop this little surprise:

We don't mind offering you a long-term truce on fair conditions that we adhere to, both sides can enjoy security and stability under this truce so we can build Iraq and Afghanistan, which have been destroyed in this war. There is no shame in this solution.

Of course, he was offering this truce to the United States. The Bush department quickly responded to the offer by flat-out denying OBL and telling him 'We'll see you in hell!'. And why shouldn't they. This adminstration has no reason to stop fighting wars. We have plenty of troops to fight. Plenty of bombs to drop. Plenty of more casualties to accrue. And plenty of perfectly innocent people to kill.

Bin Laden's recent truce offering was also occumpanied by additional threats:

The delay in similar operations happening in America has not been because of failure to break through your security measures. The operations are under preparation and you will see them in your homes the minute they are through.

So I suppose that it would be irrational for the United States to PULL COMPLETELY OUT OF IRAQ and let the inevitable civil war there occur. What's interesting here is the fact that Bush has been silent about Osama Bin Laden. In fact, I can't even recall the last time he mentioned his name in an official news conference. Isn't he the reason we're in this mess in the first place?

A few questions that I would like to be answered by somebody with connections in the adminstration:

Why are we in Iraq?
Why haven't we captured Osama Bin Laden? (My smart-ass answer: Poor marketing of the bounty on his head).
Why was the aftermath of the Iraq war so poorly planned?
With civil war inevtiable in Iraq, why not just pull out now? We wouldn't be losing face, and if anybody made fun of us, we'd just go to war with them too.
Why is the Taliban making a comeback in Afghanistan?

Please, answer my questions.

Hillary Puts White House in the cross-hairs

Hillary Clinton dropped a bomb on the White House today when she said that Republican Leaders have run the House like a 'Plantation'. While this isn't the boldest thing ever to emerge out of the mouth of a Clinton, it definitely left a nasty bite.

While this is clearly not the best way to start off a presidential bid, at least she doesn't have to worry about offending African Americans. In any case, she should be able to have no trouble in finding the money to run for president; early reports have stated that she's already raised as much as $50 Million. It should be interesting to see whether or not she actually goes through a decision to enter the race. Personally, I doubt she wins, but it will be fun to go through the experience of a woman running for president with a legitimate shot of winning.

Iran will soon get what's coming to them

It looks more and more like Iran is going to get what's coming to them, as I predicted in an earlier post. This week, talks between the E3 and Iran stalled this week leaving the European Union and the United States little choice except to refer them to UN Security Council.

For its part, Iran has vowed to block weapons inspectors from entering it's 'peaceful' nuclear facilities if it is referred to the Security Council. Anticipate those 'peaceful' nuclear facilities not lasting around for the rest of the year. Either the United States or Israel will launch a joint but covert mission to make sure that the facilites aren't around for long.

This will have devastating affects for the goals of the United States to bring peace to the Middle East. If this happens, not only will Iran continue supplying terrorists to Iraq, it will begin a more overt attempt at its aim of trying to wipe away Israel. Should be interesting to see how things turn out.

...And now, in Entertainment News...

This won't be a long post, but it will be long enough to hold over all of my anxious readers. Tonight there was a news story that came across the wires that had to do with the fact that Brad didn't call Jen about Angelina's pregnancy. My the thoughts on this are: stfw (so the fuck what). Is it really a big deal? Do web publishers such as Yahoo, MSNBC, CNN, et al feel it newsworthy to take up valuable real estate on the web to report on something most of us could give two monkey shits about?

I like gossip as much as the next guy (or, woman for that matter). But I find that story totally useless and a waste of space. They could have used that space to publish something interesting-like a link to my blog!

Coming this weekend (hopefully), pictures of my party at the Real World suite!

A Few Random Predictions for 2006

First, before I get into my list, I want to apologize to my many readers in advance: I know that these types of columns, articles, and blogs are waaay over done and have become somewhat cliche. However, I think they provide valuable insight onto what people are thinking. Onto my predictions for 2006:

• Iran's Nuclear Facilities are removed. This prediction is pretty popular, especially among people who write in the mainstream press. Many people point to the fact that the United States has been nosing around it's allies, getting their ideas on what they would think if the the US tactically removed Iran's ability to enrich Uranium. Regardless, Iran's nuclear's facilities will be no more in late 2006, with the United States or Israel taking care of them.
• The US begins a systematic withdrawal from Iraq. Again, another mainstream idea, but likely to happen. With president Bush facing the lowest approval ratings of his or any presidency, he's going to have to start listening to what the American people want, and hope all this impeachment talk goes away.
• Hillary Clinton announces her run for the presidency. There is still lots of debate on whether or not she will run for president, but with our country in the current situation that it's in, many democratic supporters may tell her that she's her party's only hope. The only reason I would even think about voting for her is just the thought of Bill sitting around the White House all day with nothing to do.
• Bush announces a strategic plan for a Plastenian State. I'm just making sure you're still reading.
• Abortion part deux takes place in front of the Supreme Court. All of us know that this is bound to happen. It's a matter of time. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that this time it will work out for pro-choice.
• Osama Bin Laden will be captured or killed. Count on it. This clown's been on the loose for five years. Everybody gets caught sometime. You don't mess with the only Superpower in the World and get away with it
• The stock market has another so-so year. The market's been very shaky for the last five years. Nothing really will do anything (positively or negatively) to break it out of it's funk.
• The Red Sox have a horrible year. I'm a pretty optimistic guy when it comes to most things in life, but with all the front office bumblings that have gone on this off-season within this organization, it's bound to end, and end badly. Although, with Manny just announcing that he wants to stay in Boston, I could be wrong on this one.
• Jessica Simpson and Nick Lachey will get divorced. All that's missing on this one is the signatures on the bottom line. The fun thing about watching this will be to see who gets what.

Hope you enjoy some of my thoughts. I'd be interested in reading any of your relevant comments.

A Few NFL Thoughts

It was a really wacky year in the NFL this year. It's amazing how interesting Parity can make the league; instead of blowouts week after week by select teams, many games actually came down to the final minutes. Congrats to to the Colts for having such a great year (going a franchise and league best 14-2).

I'm looking forward to the 49ers developing and becoming a little stronger next year. They finished 4-12 this year, winning their final two games of the season and showing improvement over last year's dismal 2-14 team.

I'm also looking forward to the Chargers next year. I thought that they would have done really well in this years playoffs, had they been in them. Unfortunately, owing to a couple critical losses to Dallas, Miami and Kansas City, the Chargers will be watching the playoffs from the sidelines.

Good luck to the fired coaches this year. Jim Haslett, Mike Tice, Mike Martz and Mike Sherman were all fired by their respective teams as of this posting. I'm sure they will all end up somewhere next year. That, or they can always start a band called the Three Mike's and a Jim.

Finally, a personal note to Brett Farve: please retire. You were one of my favorite Quarterbacks growing up. Don't soil my memory of your legacy.

I Have Another Blog

As you may have noticed, the purpose of this blog is to give my opinion on current events. With this in mind, I have s started a separate blog to do product reviews and such. It is located here. I will return to my normal blogglings, tomorrow.