Forgive Me, But I'm Being Held Hostage

Not really, but it certainly feels like it. I'm taking one of those rare things called "a vacation," and my wife pulled a fast one on me. As I scrambled to get ready to leave yesterday and tried to take care of things on the Internet, my wife said, "don't worry, we are going to a cabin that has Internet access." A beautiful cabin, but no Internet. She lied to me.

Well, maybe not, she may have been misinformed, but the results are the same. I'm writing today's blogs at a nifty little general store somewhere in the Hill Country of Texas. Beautiful location, but where is my browser? The people were nice enough to let me use it today, yet I don't want to press my luck. I am here to take a little time off, but I have come to believe that I'm an addict to writing blogs. I will miss this, write notes through out the weekend and write fresh entries as soon as possible.

Until then, have a great weekend and a wonderful New Year's celebration, and send me some suggestions for blog topics in '06. Meanwhile, I will try to sneak in a few entries between now and my return home early next week.

WebProNews Internet Winners

WebProNews is weighing in on the 8 biggest Internet winners for 06, and I found the list most interesting and something others might wish to read. I like the list and will only add a few edits. I encourage everyone to go to WebProNews and sign up for their newsletter, it is one of my favorite sources. I tell you how they won me over, great headlines in the subject line works every time. Here's their list. What other winners and losers would you add?

1. Google. Every year for Google has been a breakout year for the eight-year-old company, but 2006 was a blockbuster. Besides adding user-generated video phenom YouTube to its roster for $1.65 billion in stock, Google remained a favorite of Wall Street, with stock catapulting over $500 per share. That spike was more than enough to cover the cost of purchasing YouTube. And then they moved in with NASA.

I couldn't agree more. Google has moved from a site, to a verb (in searches, thus googling), to a legend.

2. YouTube. If Google was a winner just for acquiring YouTube, then YouTube founders Chad Hurley and Steven Chen, who created a site and flipped it for major moolah in just a year and a half, without even demonstrating how the site could turn a profit, are the biggest table scrap winners of the year. They still run their company and still got those stock certificates.

YouTube may be the first major television network for the 21st Century. What better place for it to be than online?

3. Broadband. Dialup Internet access has become akin to having outdoor plumbing. In the US, broadband access hit nearly 80 percent of the population. Because people no longer had to begin downloading a large file and then go to dinner while it finished, they spent more time actually enjoying video and audio content on the Web.

Broadband may be number 1, because YouTube and many interactive websites needed this technology to increase the Web's relevance. Without broadband, their would be very little market for dynamic content, in my opinion.

4. Lawyers. Happy days are here again for the corporate attorney. As Internet companies become Web giants, the window for lawsuit, valid or not, frivolous or not, gets a lot bigger. Google settles with advertisers angry over click fraud for $90 million - that's $60 million in advertising credit for the advertiser and $30 million cash for the attorneys who won that case. Yahoo's lawyers are so good, all they had to say was 'sorry about that' and write a check for $5 million to the complainant's attorneys.

Since I'm not a big fan of lawyers, I'll refrain from commenting much, but they have clearly been huge beneficiaries of the legal struggles related to the Web.

5. Social Media. For the end user it's been all about friends' lists, blogs, wikis, amateur videos, vlogging, podcasting, and instant messaging. From the consumer end, it's been a communication bonanza and the official creation of the citizen media. Ideally, the elite and powerful only provide the means by which the people communicate, not control the communication itself, and the people are eating up. And for the professional media, if we hear the words "MySpace" or "YouTube" one more time...

This is obviously huge and as important as the "social" part, is the participatory part, in my estimation. It is being able to influence media that has made such sites so huge.

6. Podcasting. The word "podcast" may have been Oxford's word of the year in 2005, but nobody really knew anything about it until 2006. Now organizations of all types - newspapers, corporations, educational institutions, radio stations, kids - have started their own virtual radio stations. Though Apple made threats to those audacious enough to use the term "podcast," a trademark infringement Apple said, all it took was a tongue-in-cheek one-dollar check to Apple head Steve Jobs to get official approval to podcast at will.

This, too, may be a little low on the list. Podcasting is creating a revolution that is striking fear in the heart of traditional media. People are looking for real, uncensored, and candid media; that typically cannot be done in a government regulated world of media. Traditional media, beware.

7. The Man. In all his incarnations, in government, media, or corporate America,The Man came out far ahead of the rest, even if he were scratched and bruised on the way. The G-Man, and his DOJ minions, strong-armed all the major search engines for their search data and got it, even from Google. Phones were tapped, records were seized, and online gambling, except that which is preferred by The Man, was banned. In China, The Man again forced Google to alter its search results to match the imposed cultural hegemony.

The government certainly was a big winner when it comes to the Internet in 2006, but in the top 8? I doubt it. I personally would put Rupert Murdoch in this spot for his ability to understand the power of the Internet and to transform his massive media empire into a responsive and dynamic media machine. This is being done through his very strategic Internet purchases.

8. The Proletariat. However, The Man hasn't always won this year. Though the telecommunications industry (one of The Man's most powerful front organizations) had Congress wrapped around its green finger, there were enough grass roots to forestall any legislation without meaningful Net Neutrality protections. With a massive Republican defeat in Washington, Net Neutrality has a fighting chance. When AOL tried to impose the equivalent of an email tax, the people revolted and AOL was forced to reconsider. When Britain proposed a blogger code of conduct, again the proletariat told The Man where to shove it. When TV wasn't as entertaining, when news wasn't as neutral or biased as it needed to be, when radio was too censored, and movies were far too polished, the people took the media into their own hands, which makes The Man very, very nervous.

I agree and so does Time Magazine which has called the Web contributor the "Person of the Year." That would be you and me! The world of the media is changing daily (maybe even hourly). Some, like Murdoch, are adapting and over time his traditional media will become a giant support to his Web media (just watch and see). Others are simply dead in the water, like the canal boat industry (no pun intended) that underestimated the power of trains, many in traditional media are still trying to charge for online content or are refusing to make dynamic media available (e.g., videos). Watch many traditional media go on the auction block and sell for cheap in the next few years.

This is a great list, but I would love your comments on this year's winners and losers. I would also like to know which companies or individuals you think will win big in '07.

Gerald Ford, 1913-2006

Former President Gerald R. Ford died yesterday, December 27th, at the age of 93. President Ford was the oldest living President who served one of the shortest periods of time of any President. He was also the only President to not be elected either President or Vice President. In other words, he was a very unique man.

Furthermore, he served at a unique time, rising to power in the wake of Watergate and having to deal with the turmoil of the Vietnam War. He also faced the twin challenges of high inflation and high unemployment, also knows as "stagflation." This was a difficult time indeed. However, in spite of all these challenges, he served us well and did his absolute best to heal the serious wounds our nation suffered from and I believe he succeeded greatly in a short period of time.

I admit, some of his efforts were more rhetoric than substantive (his policy against inflation was to wear buttons that said "WIN" meaning Whip Inflation Now), but his willingness to mend fences and his desire to make things better were obvious.

I believe President Ford was actually a Conservative in the traditional sense of the word. He was trying to conserve limited government, even though government was anything but "limited." He was trying to fight fiscal irresponsibility through more taxes, which only added fuel to the inflation fire. He didn't make many new policy proposals in the short period he was in power, but he used his veto pen with force, shooting down more legislation than any other President in a similar time frame. President Ford had the second most vetos of any President since Dwight Eisenhower. Ronald Reagan, who had the most in that era, only had 12 more vetos than Ford's 66, yet he served almost 4 times longer. The current President Bush has had only 1 veto in his 6 years. I remember Ford speaking at the 1976 Republican National Convention and saying with pride that the use of the veto was an example of his Conservative philosophy, and he was right.

I believe the thing that President Ford is going to be remembered for most is that he was a very decent human being. He didn't like to say ill of others, he was extremely humble, and always seemed to put the interests of others above himself. I don't think such a person could be elected today. Than again, he wasn't elected back then. Humility and the presidency just don't seem to belong together. Ford was a great man in his own right. We are a better nation because of him.

Billionaire Envy

One of the things I can't stand in our modern culture is billionaire envy. That's right, billionaire envy. I get tired of social activists, politicians, or even common citizens who take pop shots at the 700 or so people who fall in the billionaire category. Heck, most of these people even attack mere millionaires, and I simply don't get it. These self-appointed parents want to tell us that the rich make "too much" and that the super affluent "need" to share the wealth with the rest of us.

Maybe it is because I have seen too many rags to riches stories, maybe it is my gut belief that economic freedom should be protected, or maybe it is because my wife and I combined have eight kids. That's right, eight kids (no, we are not Mormon, its a long story). Any way, with all these kids I hear constantly that it "isn't fair" that Stephen has this or Liz has that. My response to such childish behavior is to ask, "what can you do to get what he or she has?" Do you honestly expect me to take what they have away from them and give it to you? What incentive would you have to work harder or do more if I did the same to you? I want all my kids to be successful and I can't achieve that goal by punishing any of them for their success. I believe this common sense approach to child rearing transcends into governing. The more we encourage people to succeed, the greater the likelihood of more people succeeding. It is as simple as that.

VH1 recently did a show about the lifestyles of billionaires and it pointed out that Bill Gates makes $4 million a night while sleeping. I'm suppose to be envious of this. Instead, it makes me wonder how I can achieve the same thing. I believe that is healthy ambition, which is what has made this country so great.

Does that mean that I don't believe the rich should pay their fair share? The truth is they do and then some. According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, the top 1 percent pay 35% of the nation's taxes. This is excessive and punitive. It doesn't make sense. I tell these critics of the wealthy to grow up, go out, and make more. After that they can share their wealth as they so desire and stop getting the government to do the redistributing for them. If they shifted a little envy towards healthy ambition, they could do so much more good than merely criticizing those who are successful (many of whom give millions and billions to charity).

By the way, I'm not super rich, but I certainly would like to be some day. It is our nation's historic respect for that desire that has made America so prosperous.

Rahm Emanuel...Accidental Genius?

I've enjoyed GQ Magazine for years. I'm not sure why, I rarely buy the clothes (they are too trendy), I never party where they suggest, and I generally hate their political perspectives. This continues to be true and was reinforced recently in the most recent issue in which they crown Rahm Emanuel as the new king maker of the Democratic Party. Who is Emanuel you ask? A former Clinton strategist who is the Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

The article sings Emanuel's praises and points out several key races where he "made a difference." But giving him credit for Republicans losing the Congress is similar to giving Al Gore credit for creating the Internet. Okay, maybe not that outrageous, but I think you get the point.

Who is responsible for the change in Congress? Several factors. The first is history, incumbents in the White House that make it to two terms virtually always lose seats (many in fact) on the 6th year of their term. Secondly, there is the media, which told us the economy simply wasn't good enough with its less than 5 percent unemployment, ridiculously low inflation, and significant growth in the GDP. Finally, there was the negative affects of the war (thanks again to the media's negative depiction). This was probably the single biggest factor. However, any (and certainly all) of these factors were far more important than Emanuel or his strategies. He is an accidental genius, if a genius at all.

I don't envy Emanuel, because I believe that Americans will likely come to their senses and this "genius" will become just another victim of history. I just hope the Congressman doesn't figure out the formula I describe in the paragraph above, because he will likely be depressed, because those factors had nothing to do with him. It may be unfair to say Democrats won in spite of him, but it would certainly be more accurate.

GQ and other publications with a liberal bent need a "hero" for these elections. They need a person to make the "miracle" of another Democratic victory. Hey, I know its Christmas, but it is easier for me to believe in Santa Claus than Emanuel. Emanuel is just a fad, for which GQ is famous for finding.

Not the Santa Claus Reports I Remember

When I was a little boy growing up in the suburbs of Detroit in Ferndale, I remember hearing reports around Christmas Eve concerning the activities of Santa Claus. I would be listening to the radio and reports would break in "We interrupt your Christmas music to announce another Santa sighting. The jolly old elf was seen flying over the North Pole at a rapid speed, destination not known, but we will keep you posted of his activities."

Later on I might hear late Christmas Even that "Cities throughout Europe have announced that they have received their packages and the last time he was seen he was heading over the Atlantic." That, of course, meant he was coming to us. Very exciting indeed.

The only reports I have heard this holiday season are the one of a Santa looking character getting kicked out of Disney World because kids were making requests, but he wasn't on the mouse's payroll or the more sinister one of the individual pictured above accused of kidnapping an 8 year old girl. These are not the Santa Claus reports I remember! Nor would I want to.

I'm amazed that with all the information that is out there, it is now so difficult to get the reports on Santa Claus that we loved as kids -- you know, the reports we want. I think those, too, may be an example of the fragmentation of media we have seen in recent decades and it would be difficult to even find such if it was out there. But I would love for my kids to get some reports on Santa that don't require covering their eyes or ears. Ah, the good old days!

Trump vs. Rosie: Possible Future Headlines on the Battle That Won't End

You can tell it is a slow news day when every news channel discusses a spat between two celebrities just about every 15 minutes; but the battle between Rosie and Trump isn't likely to end soon. Unless there is a major news story to come down the pike, we will likely be hearing about this for quite some time to come. Here are some possible (please know the difference between fiction and nonfiction) stories:

DONALD TRUMP TELLS DONALD TRUMP "YOU'RE FIRED"

In a bizarre turn of events, Donald Trump fires himself in the season opener of "The Apprentice" and announces that he is staying in LA with his new girlfriend, controversial Miss USA, Tara Conner. In a scene that defies words, "the Donald" stared into a mirror and said, "You're Fired" at the beginning of the program, saying "you took one of America's institutions of good taste and values and turned it into a source of mockery, you got Mothers Against Drunk Driving to denounce you, and you behaved like an elementary school boy in front of millions in a battle with Rosie O'Donnell. Don't let the door hit you on the way out!" With that, he tore off a fake suit and had a speedo on and out of no where the beautiful Ms. Conner came out of the wings and they left hand in hand. Rumors of the couples' where abouts include...

ROSIE O'DONNELL IS SEEN WEARING HANDCUFFS WITH HER GIRLFRIEND

Clearly taking Donald Trumps threat seriously that he would send an employee to woo Rosie's girlfriend, O'Donnell was seen walking the streets of LA handcuff to handcuff with Kelli Carpenter. Rosie was enraged over stories that they were mere girlfriends saying "we got married in San Francisco and these cuffs are a mere expression of our..."

I personally like this one....

DONALD TRUMP BUYS "THE VIEW" AND PROCEEDS TO BUY EVERY MEDIA O'DONNELL GOES TO

Everyone remembers the kid that got mad and took his marbles home. Well if you are rich like Donald Trump, you not only take yours, you buy everyone elses. In a rage over the treatment he received from Rosie O'Donnell, Donald Trump offered Babara Walters an undisclosed sum to become the Executive Producer of "The View", and no one was surprised over his first firing from the show. Who will replace Rosie? None other than Tara Conner, in an attempt to add insult to injury. In a press release, Donald Trump said "Rosie, feel free to try and work whereever you want, I can't wait to expand my media empire..."

And then, finally...

DONALD TRUMP AND ROSIE O'DONNELL ADMIT THEY ARE GOOD FRIENDS, HELPING TO BUILD EACH OTHERS RATINGS

Hmmm... That last one may prove true. Now that would be an interesting business headline!

Another Blow on Brick and Mortar

For my Birthday/Christmas present, my wife encouraged me to get new golf clubs. My history of playing golf has been spotty, at best, but my interest has dramatically increased over the last year or so. I wanted quality clubs, but didn't want to spend too much on them. I didn't want to deal with the hassle of the malls and I was looking for the most pain free shopping experience possible.

I wanted a set I could grow into and everything I read and what many of my friends told me, pointed to Adams Golf Idea A1. Last year I discovered a site, Rock Bottom Golf, and bought several woods for my son, wedges for myself, and several other items. It was cheap, fast, and very painless. This year, I found the above mentioned Adams clubs there for a mere $199.99. This is any where between $200.00 to $300.00 less than I could find in the brick and mortar world. Furthermore, they were tax free and they included a special of free postage and handling. I paid $199.99, that's it. I ordered them on Monday and they got here two days later. No traffic, no rude employees, no emotional or physical abuse. I am not surprised that there was a 26 percent increase in online shopping this holiday season. What is surprising is that people shop in the malls at all.

This was not a paid endorsement. I like Rock Bottom Golf and e-commerce, that is why this blog was written. If you golf, I suggest checking out this site.

Chris Gardner Begs the Question, What is Your Excuse?

The Pursuit of Happyness, the wildly popular movie (and based on the book with the same name) is about the rags to riches story of Chris Gardner. It begs the question, what is the excuse for failure? I have to ask it myself. I think everyone should ponder such.

In my own case, I was born and raised by parents who certainly loved me, but may have handicapped me psychologically. They never taught me how to work, they treated my like a baby long after it was appropriate, and gave me the impression that I was entitled to everything I received. Over the years I have met people with true handicaps who seemed far more capable to do so much more than me.

In our low-middle class household, first in the Detroit suburb of Ferndale, and later in Abilene, Texas, my parents (both suffered through the scarcity of the Great Depression) believed in class conflict and that every economic scenario was one in which there was a winner (those with money) and a loser (those, like us, without). My parents tried to "protect me" over the years by spoiling me, but I grew tired of such as an adult found it far more attractive to simply grow up.

I finally learned that, in the US, I'm only as limited as my imagination and that the American Dream is alive and well and can show up anywhere (even Detroit and Abilene). It was okay to say things were hard, but today I try to teach my children that life is full of challenges instead. They should see the difficulties they face like a puzzle and are not as insurmountable mountains too difficult to be crossed. Finally, I learned that most economic decisions are win-win and that I'm not competing against the mega-rich we read about or see on TV, but am part of a massive economy with plenty of room for everyone, including you and me.

These are the lessons Chris Gardner learned as well, sooner than I did in his maturation process. His mother was in and out of jail, he suffered at the hands of abusive step fathers and never knew his actual father. He actually faced homelessness while caring for a son alone; but instead of playing blame games on those who "had," he instead decided to write a new story for himself, one of success and prosperity. Chris Gardner provides an inspirational story and one that I believe virtually anyone can learn from.

On an aside, I recently wrote about the weak economic philosophy of "win-lose" so pervasive in the world today. I think you might find it an interesting read.

Donald Trump and Tara Conner Cry All the Way to the Bank

I'm amazed over what makes news these days and more amazed at Donald Trump's ability to be at the center of it. This time, it is the Miss USA winner, Tara Conner, and the accusations surrounding her of maintaining a lifestyle of "sex and drugs."

The Miss USA competition has suffered declining ratings for quite some time and there have been serious doubts that even "The Donald" could turn this sinking vessel around. Then comes along the lovely, although maybe less than discreet, Tara Conner. For several weeks the Miss USA winner has received around the clock news coverage over accusations of her inappropriate behavior.

In any other company, the powers that be would have dispensed judgment as quickly as possible to get the issue behind them, but not Donald Trump, not this time. Every day the media discussed it brought awareness and the potential of future ratings for the Trump (he has a fifty percent stake) owned beauty contest and all of the other Trump media. For example, the Donald essentially was able to say "you're not fired" in a great preview of the new season of his hit TV series, The Apprentice. I'm surprised Ms. Conner wasn't expect to wear a bikini with "The Apprentice, Now in LA!" plastered on it (if this happens, I should really get a check).

You can't buy publicity like he enjoyed these last weeks and in the season of forgiveness that surrounds Christmas, not to mention the huge amount of money he will likely make from this "embarrassing incident," is it any surprise that he is going to let her continue? I wouldn't be surprised if she gets a bonus! You got to love Trump, be it good news or bad, he always seems to know how to make a buck.

The Amazing Infomercial Called the Today Show

Most weekdays I wake up around 6:30 and watch Fox & Friends. But this is only until 7, when NBC's Today Show begins. The Today Show is the "Grand Poobah" of morning talk programs, having the best ratings than any other show of its kind. It has beautiful people, attractive sets, and lively discussions. In spite of all this, it has become little more than the most expensive infomercial on TV today. On a typical show you will hear disclaimers to the affect:

* "GE is the parent company of NBC and GE Finance"

* "GE is the parent company of NBC and Universal Pictures"

* "GE is the parent company of NBC and Universal Theme Park"

* "GE owns everything and such disclaimers are now silly"

Okay, the last point is an exaggeration, but I think you get the picture. GE is a monster. A conglomerate that is in everything from health care to washing machines, and they are promoted often (2-3 times an hour) in every program. iVillage alone is played at least once every hour of every show, it seems. How does NBC get to cover every Olympic game? They, too, are in relationship with GE. The Today Show is done very tastefully, but it is largely an infomercial, none the less.

The Today Show has very high ratings and I watch it myself. My observations are not critical, but almost in awe of this very sophisticated, product promoting, machine.

Campaign Financing and Influence Peddling: A Look at Donald Trump's Contributions

Since the early 1970s there have been very strict limits (individuals are limited to $2,000 for primary, runoff, and general elections each) on campaign spending. This was done in order to prevent any one individual to profoundly affect the chances of a candidate to get elected (in other words, to make sure individuals don't "own" politicians). One of the results of such laws has been the way affluent individuals are able to "hedge" their bets when it comes to politicians.

A great example of this is Donald Trump, who has made very clear that he is liberal. In a recent interview with Donny Deutsch, Trump had nothing but negative remarks for President Bush and was unable to think of a single positive comment for him. I've seen other interviews were his criticism has included spending, taxes, military, etc. There are few things he shares in common with Bush. However, his campaign contributions convey a different story. Actually, they don't provide any story at all, since his giving is all over the political map. Over the last several years he has given to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, its Republican counterpart, Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL), Sen. Hillary Clinton, Rep. Charles Rangel, and (surprisingly) the very conservative Sen. George Allen. The list goes on and the eader is encouraged to visit it. By the way, he split his contributions around 60/40, Democrat/Republican. The list is over the entire political spectrum and although the amounts are not always significant the dispersion of them is huge.

Because of campaign spending limits, individuals like Trump are allowed to influence numerous races without spending a significant expenditure on any. Considering that all these parties and candiates have such wildly different convictions, it appears clear that he is trying to spread the influence based on geography (many from New Jersey and New York), as well as committee assignments, and other factors. That is one of the latent "benefits" to influence peddlers found in campaign spending limits. This is not a practice limited to Trump, of course, but to virtually everyone who is both affluent and influential enough to spread their wealth.

Blog Humbug!

I must say that, although I like Christmas and it is one of my favorite holidays, it is also full of frustrations. This is particularly true after I started my own business. Unlike all of the retail businesses that benefit from the holdiday season, many of us who don't own stores find these slow times in deed. I can handle it, I just don't like it.

Furthermore, I've gotten spoiled when it comes to my blogs. I typically get numerous comments or (even more so) emails and people are simply too busy to spend time reading entries. In fact, most of the comments I have received are of the affect, "how do you find the time to write blogs this time of the year." Nothing on whether they agreed or disagreed, but how did I find the time.

I write in my blog because it is actually enjoyable and I'm amazed at where my quotes show up and how often. I also enjoy the feedback that comes with it. I've even seen them in foreign languages (I wonder what the comments are under them, though). I continue to write during this season because I'm really a creature of habit. It took a great deal of effort to get in the habit of blogging daily, but I think I could get out of that habit relatively quickly. So, I blog on!

By the way, I thought I was particularly clever with my blog title, "Blog Humbug!" Unfortunately for me, I found over 600 entries on Google using the exact same expression. Also, as an aside, the above photo isn't of me, although I would love such evening wear, but it reflects so nicely the struggle of blogging this time of year.

Tummy Trouble for Olive Garden, Major Health Concern for US?

Hundreds of Olive Garden diners have become ill and officials are trying to determine the cause. Although there are no comfirmation of E. Coli, it appears that the sickness was limited to those who ate salad (which is where it has been found recently).

This is the second major restaurant chain, after Taco Bell, to suffer from such concerns in just the last several weeks. Such scares are normally quite rare. To my memory, I have to go back to Jack in the Box in the early 90s to find such an incident, two major chains in such a short timre frame seems strange, to say the least.

I'm surprised the cursed "bioterrorism" word hasn't popped up yet. Government agencies have already acknowledged that this is a very cheap and effective way to pursue terrorist objectives. It will kill, disable, or make seriously ill, innocent vicitims. It could economically devestate businesses that are targeted. In sum, it would have a tremendous "bang" for the buck for those who would pursue such.

On the one hand, I'm glad the media hasn't begun proclaiming this concern at every possible turn yet and are being a little more deliberate. However, it may be time to more sharply focus on this as a possibility. Regardlies of it being mere coincidence or not, we should become prepared. To not do so would be disasterous. By the way, just my luck, I've gotten on a salad kick lately! At least I now have an excuse for eating bad again

Did Jim Cramer Get Fired?

Rumors run thick in every industry, and maybe especially in media. Well, as one who works with a station that is part of the Infinity Radio Network (and recently carried Jim Cramer's wildly popular radio show), the Mad Man of Money was fired. Let me emphasize the first sentence again, this is rumor and not substantiated fact. However, this is rumor from some very reliable sources. I'm writing about it now because I would love to hear from others who have more or better information.

Another part of this rumor as that Cramer wasn't fired because he isn't very good. He has enjoyed a remarkably successful radio program. I'm going to miss him because he took positions in the show that were virtually unheard of by financial advisors in the media. Instead of continuously hedging his bets, he stuck his neck out there in bold and amazing ways, which kept listeners coming back for more.

This popularly may have led Cramer to have a rather grand view of himself, according to the rumor mill. In fact, it is being circulated that he asked for $30,000 a month per affiliate each month (at least he doesn't suffer from a low self-esteem). Very few of them, if any, bit at this proposition and he was essentially "let go."

Or was he? I almost think he didn't want to do the show any more, but didn't want to simply want walk away from it. He already a very demanding daily show, after all. But simply leaving could look very weak, I'm sure in the eyes of many. So instead of taking a walk, he created a situation where they had to let him go and if they didn't, he at least would have cried all the way to the bank. The amount of dollars he was asking for and receiving revenue from those advertised nationally was unheard of in the industry. It still is, even after Cramer's alleged attempts to make such happen.

I doubt that this is the end of Cramer on the radio. You can take the person out of radio, but not the radio out of the person. I know this from my personal experience. I believe he will be back with a vengeance, probably on Sirius or XM. They probably will pay such mad money for a name like his. Just wait and see.

Sen. Tim Johnson's Condition Shows Sad State of Affairs

Anyone who reads my blog with frequency knows my party and ideological preferences. With that in mind, I would be delighted to see the balance of power in the Senate go back to the GOP. However, I would not want to see that happen at the expense of a human being. The human being in question is Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD), who is suffering from an intracerebral bleed caused by a congenital arteriovenous malformation and his condition is described as "critical." Such a health crisis can be permanently dibilitaging or lead to death, the Senator's well being should be the concerns of everyone.

National Public Radio in an online article stated headline stated: "Sen. Johnson's Illness and the Balance of Power." The concern over the Senate going back to the Republicans (the current balance is 51 D - 49 R, Mike Rounds the governor of South Dakota is a Republican and is expected to choose someone in that party, if necessary, to serve in Johnson's place, giving the majority to the Republicans because of Vice President's Cheney's tie breaking power in the Senate) was seen in virtually every news story I heard and most articles I read on the subject. In many stories, the Senator's health was almost secondary to the control of the Senate.

The situation reminded me of a kid borrowing a bike, riding it across the street and getting hit by a car, and everyone being more concerned about the condition of the bicycle and how that will "affect others" than the person who was riding it. I hope the Senator fully recovers, regardless of my very strong political leanings. I hope all Americans take that more civil position.

In spite of Iraq Study Group's claims, IRAQ Doesn't Spell VIETNAM

The Iraq Study Group's cut and run approach to the war is devestating on several fronts. Their approach is built on the assumption that we were wrong to invade and we need to leave as soon as possible. This is the wrong message to send to our troops, our allies, and most importantly to our enemies.

I feel like many aret trying to spell IRAQ as "V-I-E-T-N-A-M," but they couldn't be more wrong. The US could never adequately explain how we got to Vietnam or why it was a threat to our freedoms (in spite of the "Domino Theory"). Iraq gave every indication they were making weapons of mass destruction and they had violated the penalties put on them after the first Iraq War for over a decade. Given every opportunity to change they disregarded the international community and behaved exactly like country that wanted the treatment it received.

Furthermore, and this is important, since conducting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan we have not faced a major threat here in the United States. I think of the old song "Over There," which sang the praises of US troops in WWI and WW II defending our freedoms around the world. Today, because our troops are "over there" so are our likely enemies. Instead of New York, LA, or Houston being the theater of war, it is in the Middle East where it belongs. Instead of being "fought" with the bodies of small children and families in this country, it is being conducted by military professionals who volunteered to put themselves in this situation. This is a just war that needs to be fought more effectively.

Speaking of that, the Democrats must be devastated because of the "change" their election that led them to control Congress has brought. The President believes this war can be won and is backing up that belief with action. He is likely to announce sending more troops next month (I believe he is waiting until then to make such an announcement in order to get them lined up for deployment).

It is time for us to remember why we are in Iraq and restore the resolve that played such a major role early in our campaign. It is true there is a need for change, but that should be towards victory and not retreat.

Cyber Monday and the Continued Decline of Traditional Businesses

All the analysts are trying to size up what we are learning from the current holiday season when it comes to business. At first we were told that happy days were here again because the huge volume of sales on Black Friday (the first day most retail businesses go in the black, which is the day after Thanksgiving). Now we are told that the large volume was due to ridiculous sales that came too early (in the opinion of analysts), indicating a lack of confidence in consumers by retailers.

Regardless of what conclusions people want to come up with, this much I feel confident in saying: the traditional business is in serious trouble and days couldn't be happier for businesses on the web. According to Business Week, sales on Cyber Monday (the first Monday after Black Friday when people make purchases on the web on a large scale) grew an impressive 26% since last year, showing the continued shift from traditional stores. Why are we seeing the continued growth of online shopping?

I think it can be attributed to several reasons, including the fact that one can do it when he or she wants and people can do it largely how they want. Also, it doesn't interfere with work, which is often the case with traditional stores (many people often don't have time to go in the evenings either, the Web is far more convenient). Shopping online is becoming increasingly safer, especially physically (I haven't seen a computer mug anyone yet). Furthermore, there are no lines, which I know I despise.

However, I think the most important factor is that the brick and mortar businesses are trying the same kind of techniques they used to much less sophisticated consumers in decades past. They want us at their stores at midnight, or the sales are only for short time increments, or some other ridiculous treatment that doesn't meet the needs of the accumulators that are largely driving the economy today. In a recent interview Rupert Murdoch put it best when he said, "people want what they want when they want it." The Internet does just that. Sure there are still sales online, but they are typically measured by days, not hours. Treating consumers like animals who will jump hoops didn't work well in years past and it certainly doesn't work now. In stores, it feels as though businesses rule. On the Web, people feel like they rule. We shouldn't be surprised by the shift.

Will Taco Bell Survive Its E. Coli Scare?

I may be hard pressed to name the plase I enjoyed my favorite pizza or who serves up the best hamburgers, but everyone remembers places where disasters took place when it came to food. For example, I bet you remember Jack in the Box's E. Coli scare in 1993 that killed three and almost took out the entire chain. Here it is, 13 years later, and we still remember. Some how that chain was able to survive (and even thrive) after this disaster (which I will discuss later), but that is often the exception and not the rule.

Now Taco Bell is in a similar situation. I think about the Taco Bell a couple of miles from my home. My kids who can drive have been read the riot act -- don't go near "the border" until further notice. All the Taco Bells are interconnected in their distribution channels. The ones on the east coast that carried E. Coli were due to sources that are found in the west coast. It seems fairly safe to assume that the restaurants here may have been affected as well (0r at least I should be concerned of such).

How does Taco Bell make sure it doesn't face a certain doom? It won't be easy. Jack in the Box turned it around by being sincerely mortified, by quickly owning responsibility, and by instituting some of the most impressive quality control systems for food in the country. Within a few years of its outbreak, it enjoyed pre-E. Coli sales levels. Taco Bell is going to have to be similarly aggressive and equally compassionate if it wants to turn this disaster around. According to news accounts I saw, some of the suspected restaurants waited until the end of the business day to close after it was informed it had to so so for safety purposes. If I were handling their PR, I would had them take immediate action. Taco Bell's approach did not convey the message the chain wants to send, in my opinion.

Jeane Kirkpatrick (1926-2006)

Jeane Kirkpatrick, the first female Ambassador to the United Nations (appointed by Ronald Reagan), died today at the age of 80. Ambassador Kirkpatrick is among the people who heightened my interest in politics and was an early architect and leader of Neoconservativism (which typically means to convert to conservativism from some other ideology) and who came to prominence in the 1980s. Kirkpatrick was a Democrat for many years and, like her boss Ronald Reagan, she believed that party left her by falling into a far left, largely anti-American, ideology.

She was particularly critical of the policies of Jimmy Carter, which she believed were horribly inconsistent (mainly critical of small countries that violated human rights while ignoring far more abusive super powers) and extremely weak, leading to the decline of US prestige around the world. She was a courageous defender of the US in the UN and among the best friends of freedom the world knew through the 80s. She was a major force in the restoration of US prestige and played a significant role in winning the cold war. Jeane Kirkpatrick will be greatly missed and her contributions long remembered.

Pearl Harbor Day: Remembering Days of Lost Innocence

"December 7th, 1941, a day that will live in infamy." Those were the words of Franklin Roosevelt regarding the attack by the Japaneese on Pearl Harbor. For many in my father's generation, this was a day of lost innocence. He was 21 on that day and he was as shocked as the rest of the nation over what took place in the middle of so-called peace talks. For the first time, he felt the US was truly vulnerable to foreign powers.

Days like this are important to people of every generation. I am a part of the extreme edge of the Baby Boom generation, having been born in December of 1961. Because of my age at the time of John F. Kennedy's death, I'm not considered a "real" boomer. However, my oldest brother was 17 on that November 1963 day and he remembers it as his time for lost innocence. A time when no one felt safe and the world seemed quite chaotic.

For me, my day of lost innocence was September 11, 2001. I was much later in age that my brother or father, and I certainly wasn't naieve about how things were in the country or world. But the ugly nature of the problems facing the rest of the world and the dangers that are in it, became very real that day.

On this day -- December 7th -- you might mention to people who experienced Pearl Harbor by living at that time, that you sympathize or even empathize and that you appreciate the sacrafice of their generation.

Ethical Dilemmas for NBC?

Earlier this week NBC made history by having its broadcast entirely sponsored by one company in order to reduce commercial interruption. My initial assessment of it was clearly positive and I was impressed that the network is beginning to acknowledge the market forces that are making the traditional TV news model obsolete.

Then I began to ask myself this question, what if Philips (the sponsor of Monday's entire newscast) had a major scandal break out that news day? Something, that demanded to be reported. This would create a serious ethical problem for the network. On the one hand, you don't want to "bite the hand that feeds you." On the other hand, the media needs to feel free to report on anyone or any thing, as is necessary. How does a network do that if it is so dependent on a single source?

So, at this point, I believe it is an excellent idea from a marketing perspective, but potentially dangerous when it comes to protecting the integrity of the news process (something already greatly lacking in the industry, in my opinion). This is the thing that NBC and any other company that is interested in this approach, are going to have to work out.

Will Bob Gates Enjoy a Quick Confirmation?

In one day of hearings, Secretary of Defense designate Robert Gates received unanimous approval of the US Senate Armed Services Committee and many believe he should have comparable ease in the full Senate. This seems surprising to many, but it actually makes sense for a few reasons.

First, this is an opportunity for the Democrats to look reasonable. After months of taking a scorched earth approach with the President, this gives them an opportunity to look ready to govern.

Second, this is still a Republican controlled Senate, that is helping this process move along nicely.

Third, Gates is saying all the right things. he is criticizing the status of the war (without attacking the President) and is making it very clear that he is open to suggestions.

Finally, it is a great way for the Democrats to transfer blame if it doesn't work out. Remember, it happened under a Republican Senate.

This could prove a very smooth confirmation.

CNBC: When News Websites Become the News

For quite some time CNBC.com took the viewer to some boring page that was part of the MSNBC family. Also, for quite some time, they have been announcing plans for a major revamping of their site. The new site was "rolled out" today and, I must admit, it is fairly impressive.

Welcoming visitors to the new website, CNBC President Mark Hoffman had the following statement:

"As you explore CNBC.com you will discover aggressive breaking business news coverage, in-depth analysis, and exceptional investment tools which you can personalize to best serve your needs. In addition, CNBC.com has the most extensive business video in web history, live video programming, a substantial list of topical blogs from CNBC's anchors and reporters, and much more."

The objective is clear, to take news to people in the ways they want it delivered. It is fast in its loading, overwhelming in its resources (including tools to catch your email when you ask to see video with the hope to hit you with ads later), and includes numerous tools to keep track of your investments and to monitor stories of specific interest to you. The only thing that it is lacking is Web 2.0 functions (this link is to one of the best articles I have read on the subject), in which people can drive the media as well as be driven by it (beyond the most basic found at any news sites). I'm eager to news see sites facilitate this need.

What do we learn from this site? The media continues to acknowledge that the web is the future, particularly when it comes to news. And in the future, TV will support the Internet and not likely the other way around. The web, as a news source is cheaper, smarter, and far more efficient than TV. The Internet is truly in its Golden Age.

NBC News and the Extended Broadcast

Tonight, NBC Nightly News made history when, in the first time in its history, one advertiser (Philips electronics) was the sole sponsor of the show and gave us one minute, 15 seconds in ads instead of 7 minutes. NBC then asked us to comment and let them know our thoughts. This is what I wrote:

Clearly NBC is countering the problems facing TV news more forcefully than its counterparts at CBS and ABC with the move towards extended newscasts and the more strategic use of podcasts. The networks are trying to reach the "Accumulators"; those between the ages of the mid 30s to the mid 50s who find time to be their greatest asset and who make every effort to protect such.

I wrote about the problems facing the networks in detail in my blog at http://houstonbusinessdaily.blogspot.com/2006/11/meet-accumulators-and-how-to-reach.html. With the extended newscast and the podcasts, NBC is clearly showing its intention to be around in the 21st century. I will be discussing this in more detail at www.bizplusblog.com. Congratulations on the move, I think it will be win for Philips, NBC, and us viewers.

What else do I wish to add?

First, NBC intentions are not altruistic, but a desperate attempt to recoup the huge number of viewers in the 30s, 40s, and 50s who want their news when and how they want it, and are going else where to get it. I wrote about such in the Accumulator entry mentioned above. The average age of the typical evening news viewer is still 60 (not the prime group advertisers desire), this action by NBC will not change that fact, in my opinion.

Second, it costs a lot of money to produce national nightly news broadcasts. MSNBC laid off over 700 people a few months ago, due greatly to this problem. If people continue to go to the web, rather than TV, they will eventually abandon the latter as a news source and fill that time with some reality show that costs virtually nothing to produce. We will then get virtually all our news online where it can be updated quickly and produced cheaply. TV news will likely be dead entirely except for niche stations (e.g., Fox News, CNBC, etc.) and for the occasional local news broadcast.

You can see why I relegated these comments to my blog, I'm afraid NBC may not have liked what I had to say and they could have failed to include my comments. (Yes, I'm guilty of a little blatant self promotion, the occupational hazard of bloggers).

Donald Trump on Leadership and Problem Solving

Donald Trump, in an article in Business 2.0, explains an extremely important leadership concept that relates to problem solving. In it, the Donald suggests one should "obsess About solutions, not problems. There's a lot to the credo that success breeds success. It puts you on a high that makes more success like a magnet. I'm a positive thinker who does frequent reality checks. Negatives turn into positives, problems can be solved, things can turn around. The image of success is important, but even more important is the ability to focus on solutions instead of on problems. That way, you'll never be thinking like a loser, and you probably won't look like one either." (By the way, I encourage the reader to check out the entire magazine, cover to cover, this month). This sounds so simple, but is really quite profound. This concept of focusing on the solution, and not the problem, is extremely foreign in the world of business today, in my opinion.

In the world of business, most articles in publications, most conversations between colleagues, and most board meetings focus on what is wrong. It seems, that the "smart" people in such exchanges don't offer solutions to problems, but merely more clever ways to describe them. It is difficult to focus on solutions, for several reasons.

Misery loves company. For some reason people love to spend time together discussing what's wrong, how terrible the consequences of the problem are, and how difficult it is to overcome them. When people finally start talking about solutions, eyes begin to roll and heads begin to shake, because everyone would solve the problem with a different approach, they just won't say what that would be.

People do not want to discuss solutions because of the fear that others will determine their answer simply do not cut it. It is so much easier to focus on what most people Agee on -- the problem -- than the often tough answers.

Solutions are reflections of the actual problems. When you focus on solutions, you risk being accused of not knowing the real problem because of the approach you want to take.

Remember, it isn't the critic that counts. Those who focus on solutions will be seen as leaders. When we look at crossword puzzles, we don't think of other ways of expressing the clues, but what need to be put in those little squares. We love these kind of problems, even buy them in magazines. We need to embrace this love of problem solving to the world of business, because in that arena such an ability is really quite profitable.

Is "Head On" the Pet Rock of Health Care?

I was watching the news (ABC' Good Morning America) this morning and the topic of "Head On" came on the screen with the irritating commercial of the lady applying, what looks like lip baum, repeatedly to her forehead and the announcer telling us "Head On, apply directly to the forehead." He says it enough times that the typical viewer will get a headache.

I, like many others, wondered if it worked, especially since I noticed it recently removed the claim that it "cured headaches." It has over 6 million in sales, isn't that the necessary "proof in the pudding"? The news report was very inconclusive, finding some that said it helped, others who said it didn't, and others still who said it made their headaches worse.

In the end, the report noted that the number one ingredient to Head On was wax. That's certainly a little suspicious and it reminds me of the good old pet rock, which may have more therapeutic value for headaches than Head On. How? If you apply a pet rock "directly to the forehead" hard enough it might knock you out for a while and give you a break from your headache. I'm not recommending this, of course, but it is a thought.

My instincts are telling me that you might want to save your Head On and put on the shelf next to that pet rock you bought in 1975. They both could make excellent conversation pieces.

The Quest for a Better Blog

Recently I obtained a copy of the e-book, Build a Better Blog and I absolutely love it. One of the first things I like about it is that it is perfect for skipping around. It is really the compilation of dozens of articles that stand on their own, yet very well organized. I also like how the book cuts to the chase. The authors, Patsi Krakoff and Denise Wakeman, have made word economy a priority, which is imperative in business writing today.

Because of my desire to find what I want now, I cut straight to a little chapter entitled "17 Mistakes Professionals Make with Their Blogs." There the authors discuss content, design, and marketing. Overall they tell me I'm certainly moving in the right direction, but there is always room for improvement. For examlple, although I write often (it suggests 2-3 times, I'm closer to 4-5), I might write too much each time (one of several content issues); although I make it easy to get to know me on the home page of the blog, I don't make it easier for people to subscribe yet (design); and although I submitted this blog to many blog directories, it is promoted in the Houston Business Review and on my radio show, I still don't "ping" as we add new content, but I'm working on it (marketing). For a new blog, I'm doing well, but it is a work in progress.

I would love comments back on how to improve my blog, comments on what you like about it, and other blogs that you suggest I visit that are business oriented. Furthermore, if you are serious about blogs, I strongly suggest you get a copy of Build a Better Blog.