Direct Mail That "Makes You Look"

Remember when you were a kid and a friend would say to you "oh no, there's a spider on your arm!" Most of us would jump, do a thorough inspection, and make sure the coast is clear. Your friend would smile and say "made you look." That's the problem with direct mail pieces today, most can't persuade people to look. When I get a fancy envelope marked "important information inside" with a a picture of a slick car on one corner and a bulk mail stamp on the other, it goes into the circular file.

Today I got a direct mail piece (see photo above) that was very simple, yet very powerful. I received a little yellow envelope with a first class stamp and, what appeared to be, the address handwritten on the front. There was no return address, but it looked personal enough to make me open it and thoroughly inspect the contents.


Inside was a full page newspaper ad that had a Post-it Note that says "Kevin, Check this out, J." The newspaper ad was about "great savings" at a car sales event taking place locally(www.vipsalesevent.com/ghw, this is not an endorsement at all, but I had to give them a plug for creativity). A closer look found a direct match between the way my name was written on the envelope and the Post-it Note. A closer look still shows it was printed and not hand written at all. But these discoveries came long after I checked out the ad. This nifty trick "made me look."


In a world of bulk mail both online and reality, this was most refreshing. Yes, it was direct mail, but it didn't come across that way, which is really refreshing. If I knew who "J" was, I would love to shake his or her hand.

Sometimes Wired Has Me Worried

I like Wired Magazine and sing its praises often on this blog; but the most recent edition had me asking questions. The most recent issue has all the usual interesting information that drives me to the publication. The latest gadgets, the hottest trends, and the most important personalities. But there was also an article about Hans Reiser that threw me for a loop.

Hans Reiser is a mega geek who was once known as a "Linux visionary" who was noted for adding new innovations to the technology. Now he is accused of having something to do with the disappearance of his Russian mail order bride, Nina (photo). The beautiful obstetrician disappeared on September 23, 2006 and signs seem to point to Hans' possible doing and he stands accused of being involved in such.

I found myself reading the story, though it seemed a little odd for Wired Magazine. If it wasn't for the fact that Reiser was a some what well known geek, it would have nothing to do with Wired. It is true that the article brought in interesting insights about Reiser's contributions to the IT field in general and Linux in particular, but this article was really designed for a tabloid such as US Magazine, or something like that. It wasn't "Wired material" in my opinion. The funny thing, out of many article options, I chose to read it, which tells me a couple things about why it was in Wired:

* People like dirty laundry about others and this article was full of it.

* People are interested in bad news. Bad news, I'm afraid, sells.

* Even in an IT magazine, people are still more interesting than things.

Wired has plenty of technology issues that it could focus on, but chose to include a piece on something like this. This was done, not because of a dearth in information, but because bad news on people sells.

Why Do Women Always Win in Commercials?

I just saw a commercial for Sprint in which a man and woman had a race to determine who had a faster phone (I think it was to get online, or something, but I was too interested in the demographics of the race). The woman, of course, won. The same is true with virtually every commercial that includes men and women. In these commercials, generally speaking:

* Women are smarter. I'm amazed that men are able to get their pants on in light of what the media conveys.

* Women work harder. Unless a man can turn it on or off from a couch, he isn't going to do it.

* Women are better. If a job is going to get done, it will require a women.

I have been trying to figure out why this has happen (men generally being seen as weak idiots in the media), and I think it could be a consequence of several things:

* The culture in general seems to be largely anti-male. Unfortunately, this isn't completely without cause. Men cause most of our crime and they are much more inclined to abandon their responsibilities to their families. I doubt if beating them up in the media will do anything to reverse this sad trend.

* I believe that many of of the institutions that affect culture (TV, magazines, art, etc.) are becoming increasingly dominated by women. I believe this is particularly true of the marketing and advertising fields that use to be dominated by "Ad Men" and is increasingly being over taken by women in these posts. I believe there is a general consensus that women are more creative and artistic, making them ideal for these fields.

In the end, I'm sure there are other factors driving these trends and I think the move in this direction should be a little disconcerting to all of us, including women, because many of them have sons whom they would prefer to be better men. Media is powerful and will, in my opinion, have a direct impact on the type of men we raise in our culture.

Does Sex Sell Business News?

Fox News seems to think that sex sells business news and it was a reoccurring theme on this weekend's Cost of Freedom programming this past weekend. On Forbes on Fox there was a heated discussion about whether office affairs were good or bad for business. Viewers were lured with images of a leggy woman in promos and during the segment and there a was furious (if not serious) debate about the subject.

After that, there was Cashin In, where the subject was an advertising campaign that the Israeli government is doing to attract tourists. Beautiful and in bikinis, Israeli women were wooing potential visitors with attractive photos (that they displayed liberally during the segment). Another argument exploded with individuals fighting over whether it was appropriate for Israel to do such a campaign when it is noted for its religious heritage rather (as stated by one of the panelist) than as a hot spot "to pick up women."

In the end, I found both debates less to do with substantive business issues and more to do with plain old sex appeal. Don't get me wrong, these are important issues (well, at least sexual relations between co-workers), but with the display of photos and the verbal bating before and during the segment, the weighty issues were overwhelmed by fluff. On the other hand, Fox business programming (between 9-11 AM Central on Saturdays) are the highest rated shows for business on cable. Also, I have been guilty of throwing in a photo of a beautiful person now and then on this blog myself (like the photo of one of the Israeli models mentioned in the story above). So the question I posed in the title of the article has an obvious answer. Sex seems to sell everything, even business news.

Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?

I'm largely a news junkie, but I occasionally find myself watching what the rest of the family enjoys. Lately, my family enjoys "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?" (photo of one of the many participating students). The hit Fox show has the potential of making someone a millionaire, yet no one has achieved that lofty status. The kids -- all fifth graders -- look rather intimidating and being forced to declare that you are not "smarter than a fifth grader" if you lose would be enough of a deterrent for most sensible people to participate. But still, they seem to have plenty of participants.

I do fairly well each time I watch and I'm surprised by the number who bail out early. My kids say that the show proves how irrelevant modern education is, since people forget so much from their elementary years by the time they become adults. I believe most educators would argue that there is a large body of information we learn in school, that which many would call "cultural literacy." Some would keep some information, while others would remember other information, based on their interests, careers, and other factors.

It is interesting that many of my kids enjoy this show and are learning things they are suppose to be learning in school (something that doesn't always happen), so for that reason I have a some what friendly view of the program. Maybe schools would become far more successful if they conducted classes in a game show studio.

Houston Business Show Develops Television Programming

Forgive me for blowing our own horn, but we are excited to announce the creation of our new "Movers and Shakers" segment on the Houston Manufactuers TV Show, produced by Phonoscope.

In addition to being seen on television in thousands of offices throughout downtown Houston, this program is also seen by thousands more online. In fact, I recently visited with the show's host, Robbie Adair, who said they received thousands of unique visitors to the show's page in the last few days alone. The numbers are comparable to the audience of many popular radio shows in town.

The future of TV is online, in my opinion. In fact, I like to call YouTube one of the first TV networks designed for the 21st century. The web, in the words of Fox's Rupert Murdoch, allows people to get what they want when they want it. Also, the Internet's increasing speed and computer screen quality make it better than the TV in many respects. If websites are going to remain relevant, they are going to need quality video content, which was a goal we had for the Houston Business Media Group in 2007 and was thrilled to have the opportunity to work with these fine partners.

We expect our video programming to expand in the weeks to come as we strive to offer more programming. We consider this a valuable tool to convey information to our growing audience.

The Value of Blogging

I have been blogging for around a year now and have learned a great deal about this important business tool and wanted to share a few observations.

* You can reach people around the world through blogging. Copies of my posts and articles have appeared in Russian, Spanish, Chinese, and French!

* Blogging can increase web traffic. Combined our websites have around 100,000 unique visitors, my blog has been a driver in that traffic.

* Blogging can build credibility. Increasingly I am finding my posts on other business, political, and economic sites referred to as an authority on these issues. I'm not claiming it, but certainly appreciate the flattery.

* Blogging increases the number of clients you receive. I'm getting more and more calls and emails from individuals who are looking for information based on posts of mine they have read. These in turn often become clients.

* Blogging takes time. I ramped up slowly, roughly one a week, and now typically do one a day (five days a week). It took a long time to be found or to see a payoff, but it has become increasingly beneficial. Now I have almost 1,000 links to my blog outside of my sites, but this didn't happen over night.

I suggest you begin blogging today and spend time getting educated on the subject. Be it about your business, your passion, or long term goals. I have found it an excellent tool to build one's business.

The Importance of Relationships

On today's Houston Business Show I interviewed some bright minds in business. My subject is the importance of relationships. I believe that relationships are the single most important factor to success in business. I asked each of the panelists -- Robbie Adair of Houston Manufacturers, business attorney Wayne Isaacks and Ralph Fain who is a Merger and Acquisition expert (both found here); and financial expert Blake Barnett.

On my part, the single most important relationship I can point to in business is my friend Mike Richards. I have known Mike for almost 30 years and met him when he was running for statewide office. He did extremely well in the insurance and media businesses (and also hosted a popular radio show for many years in Houston), and is now the President of the International Bible Society.

Mike has always been an inspiration to me. He grew up in poverty in East Texas, often sharing a bed with siblings while growing up. He told me stories of having to hold the door to the car whenever his dad made a turn. He went to college on an athletic scholarship (like me, he went to Abilene Christian University). Early on he recognized his ability to create relationships and leveraged it successfully in the highly profitable insurance field. He went on to become one of the most successful people whom I personally know.

Mike always made observations about individuals that were most perceptive and those played a strategic role in how he conducted business. Today when I negotiate with someone, consider doing business, or just ponder my commerce in general, Mike is something of a "Dicky Fox" character (photo) to me from the movie Jerry Maguire. Maguire would always remember some useful information from Dicky at crucial times through out the movie. In the same way, I will often interact with someone and remember something Mike told me.

"Relationship, relationship, relationship; those are the three most essential elements to business" he would say. I believe he is absolutely correct.

Will Matt Lauer of Today Lose His Job?

Should Matt Lauer be fired for "hate speech?" Probably not and certainly shouldn't, but in the Politically Correct world in which we live in, anything is possible. In a brief discussion with guest, singer Enrique Iglesias, he asks the heartthrob about his love life. Iglesias admits "I'm difficult to live with." Lauer responded with something to the effect of "I understand that, you have that Latin thing going." There was a look of a little shock on Iglesias face, "what does that mean?"

You could see that Lauer was starting to lose color to his face, but he already stuck his neck out too far and went along with it, you know the "anger" issue, he said. Fortunately, Iglesias let it slide and went on to his next song, but I could almost hear Lauer catch his breath.

You know, of course, what I am going to say. If it had been someone who had a reputation of being Conservative, he would have had to apologize profusely and could possibly be fighting for his career and his reputation. Of course, the day is young yet, Al Sharpton may still be in California -- hours behind New York -- complaining about special treatment that Paris Hilton is receiving and he isn't up yet.

My mom was from England, she came right off the boat (a war bride). So I get made fun of for my choice of food ("meat please, hold the taste") and sense of humor (slightly sarcastic, to say the least). It is okay, I'm a white male, and I think there is room for humor at my expense (although I do have a very broad appetite for food). Furthermore, I'm not justifying anyone demonstrating bad manners to anyone else. But what I am saying is that we have all become a little too sensitive and need to take it light. Fortunately, it appears that Iglesias is willing to do just that, but I think the PC culture as a whole should take it down several notches.

Is CBS News Using Rosie's Strategy for Ratings?

For the last several days I have felt like I have been watching Rosie O'Donnell, but she is largely under the radar screen. Instead, I have been watching the battle breaking out on national news between Dan Rather and CBS President Les Moonves over the "demise" of the network since "Rather left."

Rather says that the network -- and broadcast news in general -- have been "dumbing down and tarting up." Both comments seem to be pointed at Katie Couric (photo), although Rather denies it and says it is a statement about news in general. Les Moonves has gone immediately to war, calling Rather "sexist" and that he is suffering from sour grapes. Furthermore, Moonves argued that the network was devastated long before Rather left and before Katie got there, which is why the veteran needed to be replaced.

I'm now waiting for nasty comments about someone being "too fat," "too stupid," or having "bad hair." Oh, that's the Trump and O'Donnell debate, network news would never resort to that. Hmm, then again, I guess they already have. I deny, however, that the network is at all interested in "tarting itself up," in spite of my choice of a photo. Furthermore, would the major news network resort to Trump and O'Donnell tactics to increase ratings? Of course not.

Christopher Horner on Global Warming

This week on the Houston Business Show (Monday at 1 PM on CNN 650 and 24/7 at HoustonBusinessShow.com) I interviewed Christopher Horner (photo) of the Competitive Enterprise Institute about his controversial book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism. He is one in a list of national interviews I am doing each week on my show (recently I have had Jonathan Hoenig of Fox News and next week I'll be visiting with my old friend, Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal).

During the interview, Christopher quickly tackled the "sacred cow" of liberals, which is the "Global Warming" scare. The facts he brought to the discussion were impressive and deserve more air time else where:

* "Technology means good ecology." The countries with the best technology, produce the least amount of pollution. Encouraging economic growth helps to preserve the a sound environment.

* Excessive regulation and excessive taxation makes the environment unhealthy. Chris and I discussed the Eastern Europe experience and I mentioned that, during my travels to countries like Poland and Hungary, that pollution was terrible (especially Poland, which had the toughest environmental regulations for decades). He pointed out that the more aggressive countries are in taxation in regulation, the worse the environments. Money that would go to capital improvements (making better technology and less pollution), is instead going to fighting legal actions against them in the name of environmentalism.

* There are very few true climate scientists (approximately 80) in the US and they do not have "consensus" on what is going on with the environment. Some attribute it to cycles, others point out that we are moving to global freezing, and others still offer different perspectives. The reports that point to the "scientific community" supporting concerns of global warming are inaccurate because that so called community is made up of individuals who simply lack the right credentials.

There is much more a reader can garner from this excellent book and it should be read by everyone -- particularly those in the manufacturing industry that the new green laws are targeting. I consider Christopher Horner's book "must reading." By the way, you can order it today at our new and improved bookstore.

Why We Haven't Seen Another September 11th

People have wondered why we have no had another incident like September 11th. Sure, we have your occasional anthrax scare or ad hoc group making plans, but we haven't seen anything like September 11th. It isn't because our enemies lack the resources or the resolve, they simply have better memories than many Americans.

They remember how the US was like a Sleeping Giant that abruptly woke up and immediately went to war in Afghanistan. They remember how Saddam Hussein and his regime was held accountable for violating terms of the conclusion of the last Gulf War.

Our troops are "over there" and our enemies want us "over here." The Islamic Fascist know that another September 11th will do nothing to reach that objective, knowing America's ability to respond.

An example of this is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a man who was behind September 11th and focused extensively on the West in his terrorist activities. That was the case until 2003, in which he moved his focus to fighting in Iraq and is believed to be the man who killed Daniel Pearl. Others in the al Qaeda movement made similar moves back to the Middle East.

My view is simple. I want this war fought by well trained volunteer adults in the Middle East, not by families and little children at school in the Midwest.

Let's keep the war over there in an effort to keep it away from here.

See How They Run: Sizing up the Three Tiers of Republican Candidates

The current discussion of two groups -- the "Big three" (or is it four now?) and everyone else doesn't accurately size up the break down of the Republican Presidential hopefuls, in my opinion. The following is my spin on the eleven candidates for President, what tier they are in, and what chances they have (if any). Again, this is my perspective, I look forward to the comments of others.

Tier I (in alphabetical order)

Rudy Giuliani. Rudy's strengths are that he is attractive to libertarians who favor the war and traditional conservatives who are willing to over look his positions on social issues "for a time such as this." He would be unacceptable in 2000, but must be taken seriously today. His negatives are that he is untested on national issues, people will have reluctance about choosing a former mayor, and NYC mayor has a history of being a "dead end job."

My view: He has access to deep financial pockets. He goes in deep in the election and I wouldn't be surprised if he's on the ticket, some where.

John McCain. On the up side, he had a strong organization and high name identification. Furthermore, his strong position on the war is attractive to traditional conservatives who might other wise dislike him. On the negative side, he's old and sounds old. His total lack of understanding on tax policy is unacceptable.

My view: He is sinking fast, many supporters or going to be bailing out in the days to come. Check back next week, the "Big Four" could be a "Big Three" again, minus him.

Mitt Romney. Romney is attractive (maybe too much so?), was able to get elected in the most liberal state in the country as a Republican (can you say Reagan Democrats?), he is a former governor (historically one of the strongest positions to run for President), and has virtual unlimited access to money (like his own pockets). On the down side, he "matured" on issues too late in life to make most Conservatives comfortable, his religion makes many traditional Conservatives nervous, and he's from Massachusetts.

My view: His money will have him last quite a while in this race, but I don't see him ever "catching on" to the Party in general. However, if a Giuliani gets the nomination, he might be seen as a good balance on the ticket. He won't be, however, because Republicans will have a very difficult time winning without a Southerner on the ticket. This, of course, leads to...

Fred Thompson. Thompson (photo) has access to significant amounts of money, is a very solid Conservative, is from the South (crucial for anyone to win the Presidency these days), is a former Senator (meaning he has proven ability to win bigger races), and knows how to act like a leader. His negatives are less obvious, but I'm concerned about how he will do on the campaign trail. Also, the Senate is not nearly as strong as the governorship for getting elected President (the chief executive role seems to be very important).

My view; Fred Thompson is the guy to beat. Period. His numbers are stronger than people who have spent millions and he simply comes across as more Presidential.

Tier II


This is were I am sure I will get some arguments. All those who believe there guy should have been in "Tier II" will be upset. However, it should be of comfort to all of you, that "Tier II" dwellers won't likely get the nomination, unless something seriously wrong happens to the group above. Again, this list is in alphabetical order:

Sam Brownback. The Kansas Senator is, in my opinion, on the bottom part of the Tier II list. He is a fine as US Senator and should really do us a favor by staying there. We can use quality people in that body. He lacks the maturity and ability to relate to be a serious candidate. Furthermore, he seriously lacks access to money.

Jim Gilmore. The former Virginia Governor comes from the South (a big plus) and had that crucial chief executive role. These are two major pluses. Beyond these two big positives, Gilmore simply doesn't cut it. I think he may be running for an appointment in a new administration. He also seriously lacks money.

Mike Huckabee. Huckabee is a relatively young Southern (recently) former Governor, who comes from a state that has strong, Democrat roots. If you keep your observations to this brief overview, he looks excellent, but his chances are really quite poor. He has a mixed fiscal record as Governor, very limited access to money, and doesn't come across as particularly Presidential. He's on the high end of the Tier II and could pull off a miracle if the top Tier implodes, but don't hold your breath.

Tommy Thompson. I like Thompson, personally, although he is not Conservative enough and he fails to come from a region that has produced a popularly elected President in decades. Thompson is innovative (his views on Iraq are very interesting, in my opinion) and he is a former Governor, which is very important in politics today. His down sides include limited access to money and a weak connection to voters (he's something of a technocrat). In many respects, running for President of the US is more like running for "class president" than virtually any other political office. He simply doesn't get the popularity factor.

Tier III

This is the group that would do us a collective favor by getting out tomorrow. These three candidates are two traditional right wingers (Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo) and a libertarian (Ron Paul) and they are only diluting the support of the real Conservatives in the upper tiers. I wish there were a couple liberal or moderate Republicans in this group.

I could easily dismiss these three for one simple reason -- they are members of the US House of Representatives. We haven't elected a US House member since 1880 (James Garfield who was assassinated just a few months in his office) and I honestly think we are less likely to elect someone from that spot now than then. The office doesn't give potential supporters much hope that he can muster the national support essential to win. They have extremely limited access to money, poor organization, and simply don't look serious.

Duncan Hunter. The California Congressman is actually an old friend of mine (I mentioned that to a campaign member and they now count me as one of his supporters). When I was involved with a think tank I helped to start in DC, he served on the Advisory Board and had a study I wrote with Dr. Larry Adams (who is now with the University of Virginia) published in the Congressional Record. I like him, but I can't support him. He doesn't have a prayer and I believe he is too pessimistic on economic policy to be a successful President.

Ron Paul. I was an early member of Young Conservatives of Texas (back when I made my first vote for Ronald Reagan) and Ron Paul was a very good friend to that organization. I believe he has a great deal of personal integrity and I have liked his position on many domestic policy issues. However, his "blame the US" views on foreign policy are a disaster that discredits many of his positions on the economy. I wish he would get out, but I'm afraid we might see him running as a Libertarian again. He's a sad story, in my opinion.

Tom Tancredo. Tom seems to me to be a single issue candidate -- immigration -- in a party that is still divided on the best approach to that issue. In many ways, he is just like Duncan Hunter, but if you put the two together you still wouldn't have a dime. He's a fine Congressman, I wish he would stay there.

That's how I size up the candidates, I look forward to seeing the comments of others.

What a Difference a Day Makes

At the time of this writing, few appear to know why Paris was released from jail, but it certainly failed to meet the judge's criteria of appropriate grounds. She's back in and she was crying "It's not fair" all the way there. I hate to admit it, she's right.

She should have went to jail and stayed there her entire sentence, but to let her out and drag her in, is ridiculous. This is clearly a dispute between the Sheriff's office and the judge, and the pawn in the whole process is Paris. The thought of being free after being stuck in that terrible hole, and then going back again, must be truly devastating.

Don't get me wrong, she deserved to be punished. Furthermore, as I pointed out in the post below, her early release could get her killed, reinforcing the notion that she can get away with anything. I will say that the judge took a serious blow at that notion and I hope that ends up being the upside of this story.

My gut tells me this story isn't over. I wouldn't be surprise if the Governor springs her out in support of her fellow celebrity. I wouldn't even be surprised if the judge has second thoughts. Regardless the case, I believe she will be out before her time.

California, what a crazy place.

The Power of Paris Hilton

I usually have no stomach for bleeding heart liberals who cry "victim." "Affluent whites getting special treatment," "minorities unfairly treated," blah, blah, blah. My response is "do you want some cheese with that whine?" Generally speaking, the laws are designed to protect minorities, often to an extreme. In fact, one can argue that we are a nation that suffers from reverse discrimination, with laws that put the majority "in their place to make up for years of harsh treatment to minorities."

There are individuals, like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, who make a living out of exploiting the victim status of minorities. In fact, as long as they can keep their constituents victims, they these purveyors of poverty will always have a "job." So, I get tired of the complaints, and then Paris Hilton comes along and validates all of their claims in one week.

Paris Hilton (photo), convicted for driving without a license ("you mean if my license is suspended, I can't drive?), is sentenced to over 20 days and appears (at the time of this writing) will only be in jail for three. Her "health status" (actual problem unknown to the public at this time) led to her early release, but don't worry, she will still do her time. Except now it will be in a 4,000 square feet section of her family's mansion. Also, they are roughly doubling her sentence. Wow, life is tough, forty days in a mansion!

In addition to the large social problem cited above, the sad thing on an individual level is that this girl needed an opportunity to save her life. If she continued on this path, I believe she would be destroyed. In my opinion, those twenty days could turn her life around. Paris needed to be "scared straight" and every day in the joint got her closer to that objective. Instead, the lesson she has learned is that she will always figure out a way to get out of trouble. A bad day for an individual and for social progress as a whole.

eHarmony's Unusual Marketing Break

For most companies, being sued is a very bad thing. This may not be the case for the popular eHarmony website. Online dating is full of controversy, I don't know how often I have heard people sum up a relationship that has gone bad with "he/she found him/her on the Internet" and everyone gives that knowing look. This seems to be an attitude that is particularly true among the religious community.

Many of a Christian persuasion believe that it simply isn't sensible to date people that way, yet online dating is a thriving and growing business. eHarmony has been one of the fastest growing in this sector because of its commitment to matching people based on their personalities and values, and not on superficial factors. It has been the place that has attracted those who are more religious. Recent "bad news" the dating giant has received should only further validate its position as one that is popular for those with strong, traditional values.

In the last week or so, eHarmony has been slapped with a lawsuit because of accusations that it prohibits homosexuals from profiling since the service's objective is marriage and such unions are illegal, the website argues, why allow such profiles? It is also well known that eHarmony's founder, Neil Clark Warren (photo), is a strong evangelical and saw eHarmony as a way of fulfilling his ministry. Most evangelicals strongly opposes homosexuality, Warren would clearly fit that perspective. Instead of being a negative that will turn off potential users, I believe this lawsuit could make the service more attractive among potential users who have had recluctance towards online dating services. Every day there are negative stories about eHarmony when it comes to gays and lesbians, there will likely be Christians citing it as an exception to the more "seedy" services that are out there. In other words, this lawsuit will differentiate them from the competition.

I think, in the end, eHarmony is going to win in both the courts and the court of public opinion by attracting the large evangelical market. I guess this validates the old cliche that all media exposure, is good media exposure.

See How They Run: Did Hillary Clinton Look Presidential to You?

During the Democratic debate I noticed that Hillary (photo) acted like she was the incumbent holding on to her seat. It was a scary vision of 2012.

Hillary's rise in the polls, her attitude of entitlement that she "earned it," and her vast experience in politics made her simply seem more Presidential in the others. But it was more than that. She acted like she had something to lose. "We are far more alike than we are different," she told the audience and her fellow contenders. She was already making the "vote for me on ability to get elected" case that typically comes much later in the game. I think this strategy may win some. It was really quite convincing, especially when you think of all the times we have seen her in "Presidential settings" over the years.

But for most, I believe it will be a policy that makes her fall on her face. There were 9 candidates on that stage and there was nothing she did in her presentation to make her stand out from the others. In fact, that was her exact strategy. This type of arrogance, "the pride before the fall," will come back to haunt her. A few more presentations like this -- being cool instead of passionate -- will haunt her in the end and I believe we will see it very soon in upcoming polls.

It Is Time to Privatize Unemployment Insurance

I believe that President Bush's attempt to privatize Social Security (picture)would have created a nation of investors, would have left people far better off at retirement than the current system, and would have led to enormous growth for the economy as a whole. But the media and liberals argued that the policy was simply "too radical" and succeeded to undermine the support necessary to make it become law.

Bush should have started with something far easier to implement -- the privatization of Unemployment Insurance. This would be easier for several reasons:

* The number of people who will ever need unemployment insurance is considerably less than those who will need Social Security. Therefore it is "safer" to implement in this arena, than in something like Social Security. In other words, it would be perceived as a "minor experiment," rather than a radical shift in policy.

* This policy could have substantial flexibility in plan design, allowing individuals to store up money for the purpose of creating a business at the event of unemployment. This is something many would find attractive and would easily build support.

* Because we have enjoyed a few decades of low unemployment, and short periods of unemployment when they happen, rates would be very attractive compared to the arbitrary government taxes, and move a large number of Americans to support it.

* With a huge number of Baby Boomers approaching retirement age (and many being vulnerable to being laid off), yet not having adequate savings, they would love to have a "tool" like this to protect them. This would create a huge amount of support and momentum.

The benefits of this policy would be numerous:

* People would be able to design plans to meet their specific needs.

* People would have an incentive to get back to work quicker (or to create a business), in order to keep their rates low. Over usage would lead to higher rates, similar to the way other insurance is determined. The benefits to the economy would be obvious.

* It would contribute to a growing economy as revenues moved to private enterprise, both in premiums (which insurance companies would use for investments) and in the creation of new businesses because of the policy designs.

With the vast majority of Americans employed and many of them preferring to easily create a business if they lost their job, there should be plenty of support for a policy such as this. Furthermore, it could be a great wedge issue for the President to take support from the Democrats. This isn't a policy that should have to wait for a Republican President AND Congress. Rather, it is an issue Bush should pursue today and make it a referendum issue for 2008.

What Would Jesus Buy?

I watched the Today Show this morning and found the story about the "Reverend Billy" fascinating and worthy of comment. In the seedy days of Pre-Giuliani NYC, Times Square was noted for its porn shows and other ghetto activity. In those days, street preachers were common who condemned the sins pervasive in the city. You will only find one such preacher today, in most circumstances, and that is Reverend Billy and he is going after the problem of "commercialism." He preaches against the Targets, Disney Stores, and other purveyors of "materialism" and tells people to leave their money in their wallets and don't subsidize such large retail stores.

He romanticizes "the good old days" when New York was lined with little family owned stores and everyone knew their neighbors. Of course, in those "good old days," people had far fewer employment opportunities and the cost of goods were often out of reach. I'm not only talking about wasteful "stuff," but the staples of life itself. Furthermore, these poorly funded, but much more "neighborly" streets, lacked what was necessary to make New York safe and prosperous. If he wants to go to "Pre-Giuliani" New York, he should move to....; well, I don't want to insult any city.

Billy is more than anti-commercial, he's a typical liberal who likes to spin circumstances according to his worldview. His worldview is one that is oblivious to economic plight, one that fails to recognize how "a rising tide lifts all boats" and that economic growth benefits everyone, especially those who are hit the hardest. In the real world where his audience lives, most seem to be far happier to live in a safer and more prosperous New York city. A prosperity that goes beyond mere Wall Street to Wal-mart. Oops, that's in New Jersy, but you get my point.