England finally won the Ashes when the fifth and final Test match was drawn at the Oval cricket ground in London before a packed and delirious crowd. Outside the ground spectators hung precariously to rooftops and watched from tower blocks some way off through binoculars, any vantage point to take a peek at what would be a historic day.

And yet it could once again have been so different as the Australians came out breathing fire and brimstone on the final morning, skittling the English batsmen out in the early session. And when England’s talisman Freddie Flintoff was out for just eight, a win for Australia was very much on the cards.

But Kevin Pietersen steadied the ship with a record-breaking innings of 158, he passed Ian Botham’s record of the highest number of sixes against Australia and also finished as the highest scoring batsmen in this close fought series. Shane Warne finished top wicket taker with 40 wickets in the series, and received a huge ovation from the knowledgeable crowd, many of the English players among them.

In a match plagued by rain and bad light delays it was clear that the draw was always going to be the favourite result, and so it turned out, as Australia struggled to bowl out England a second time. The final series result of two to one to England with two drawn was just about the right result with even many Australians agreeing that the home side just about deserved to take the trophy.

But after such a thrilling and hard fought series Cricket is the undoubted winner. Cricket bat sales have reached record levels and cricket can be seen played on public parks all over the land, parks and public land where cricket has not been seen played for many years. The series was shown in dozens of new countries throughout the world bringing a whole new audience to the game.

And while all five games have been fought to the death in a never to be forgotten style, the sportsmanship shown by both sides throughout the summer has been immense. Huge credit is due to the Australian players who played the game with a dignity and style that is unfortunately a rare event on the modern day sports field.

No one who witnessed any of the matches will ever forget them, and now England have just 14 months to dwell on their victory before they travel to Australia to commence the battle all over again in Brisbane in 2006. Tickets will be on sale soon and they will be snapped up.

The England supporters, the self styled Barmy Army, will travel down under in record numbers to support their side, and with the average age of the England side being well below that of the Australians, the current England side still have improvement in them. It will be interesting to see if Australia can and indeed do decide to replace some of their aging stars with younger players of an equal calibre.

In the meantime England head off to the sub continent for what are bound to be closely fought matches against India and Pakistan this winter. But that is for the future, for now England is basking in the glow of taking back the Ashes after almost twenty years, and the country has gone cricket mad after the biggest sporting occasion seen in England since the football World Cup win of 1966. And the public have been desperate to back their team with hard cash too. Over £38 million was matched on this game with Betfair alone. You can still have a free $30 bet with Betfair.com by entering the promotional code 6CHE3VPWJ when prompted.

So it’s farewell to the great Australian bowlers Glen McGrath and Shane Warne who will not play Test cricket in England again, but neither of them rule out playing in the return series at the end of 2006, and as long as their bodies hold up, the English expect to see these old foes facing them again next year.

Your correspondent has been watching cricket for nearly 50 years and this has unquestionably been the greatest series of all, but don’t take my word for it, Richie Benaud the former Australian captain and worldwide commentator for the last forty two years retired in England on the final afternoon of this match and he said exactly the same thing. He intends to continue commentating in Australia. It has been wonderful listening to you Richie, have a long and happy retirement with you lovely wife.

So England have the Ashes, did I mention that? Perhaps it’s because I still can’t quite believe it. If you’d like to know more about cricket please please take a look at the Cricinfo site.

David Carter runs a holiday cottage website where you can choose from over 7,000 holiday cottages, villas and apartments throughout the world. Check out http://www.pebblebeachmedia.co.uk for full information. To find out more about cricket click on http://www.cricinfo.com
You can contact David on any matter at supalife@aol.com

As the search engine wars heat up between Yahoo and Google it’s very interesting to note the similarities and differences between the two. Both companies are based in Silicon Valley with only 5 miles separating the two of them. Google has approximately 3,021 employees whereas Yahoo employs 7,600.

Google was created in January 1996 whereas Yahoo is exactly two years older however Yahoo went public (IPO) on April 12, 1996 – Google’s IPO wasn’t until August 19,2004.

Founders

Yahoo was founded in January 1994 by David Filo and Jerry Yang who were both Ph.D. candidates at Stanford University. Google was founded exactly two years later on the same campus by another pair of Stanford Ph.D candidates named Larry Page and Sergey Brinn. All four were in their early to mid twenties when they founded their respective companies. Today all four are internet legends and multi-billionaires.

What Do Their Names Mean?

Yahoo is an acronym for Yet Another Hierarchical Officious Oracle

Google comes from the mathematical term “Googol” which is 1 followed by 100 zeros.

S&P 500

Yahoo was added to the S&P 500 on December 8, 1999. Google is currently not an S&P 500 company. To be added to the S&P 500 a company must have a market cap of at least $4 billion, be liquid and have a 50% float – all criteria that Google currently has. In most cases the S&P 500 likes to have four public quarters of earnings before a company is added. Google is a behemoth and will soon be added to the index. Once added fund managers (who cover the S&P 500) will be required to buy shares of Google which could potentially result in a stock increase.

Yahoo’s 5 Stock Splits

Yahoo has had 5 stock splits going public. Its first stock split came almost 17 months after its initial public offering (IPO.) Google has yet to split its stock even though it’s approaching $300 but Google has only been public 11 months. Google will be a public company for 17 months around the end of 2005.

Revenues

According to financial results approximately 50% of Google revenues come from ads (Adwords) on Google’s US websites, approximately 33% comes from ads (Adwords) on Google’s international websites and 15% come from network partner revenues who carry Google Ads (Adsense) on their websites. In sum approximately 98% of revenues come from Google ads either on Google or a partner site and either in the US or international.

Google Adwords (adwords.google.com) allows website owners the opportunity to place sponsored ads and links on the right hand column of their search pages. According to Google and Media Metrix the Google Network via Adwords reaches 80% of all internet users.

Yahoo’s revenues also weigh heavily on similar ads and sponsored links on its network implemented by Yahoo Search Marketing, formerly Overture which it acquired in October 2003 for $1.63 billion. Approximately 87% of Yahoo’s revenues come from market service revenues. Approximately 12% are from fees.

Search Engine Traffic

Yahoo leads the world in overall internet traffic. This is due in large part to Yahoo mail which draws approximately 40% of its 345 million monthly visitors.

However where Yahoo is the king of traffic Google is the king of search referrals. According to WebSideStory (www.websidestory.com) Google’s share of all US searches hit 52% in June 2005 up from 45% in June 2004, 38% in June 2003, 32% in June 2002 and just 12% in June 2001.

As Google’s share of referral searches increases over time those of Yahoo have decreased. Yahoo’s share of US searches was just half that of Google’s at just 25% for June 2005, 27% for June 2004, 32% for June 2003, 33% for June 2002 and 37.5% for June 2001.

MSN, the second most visited website thanks in large part to Hotmail, falls far off the charts when it comes to individuals using their search engine. Of all the searches performed in the United States just 10% used MSN in June 2005, 16% in June 2004, 17% in June 2003, 14% in June 2002, and 17% in June 2001.

According to Alexa.com Hotmail accounts for 68% of MSN’s traffic, MSN Search just 7%, MSN.com 5%, MSNBC 2% and most of the others receive 2% or less.

The numbers are even more impressive for Google when going global. According to WebSideStory Google refers 73% of all search engine traffic in the UK, 42% in Japan, 81% in Australia and 91% in Germany.

In response to the amount of traffic that Yahoo Mail and Hotmail draw to their networks Google launched its own free email service in March 2004 called Gmail. Gmail currently attracts 5% of Google’s overall visitors compared to the 80% that search draws. I would imagine that overtime this 5% will most likely increase and could potentially bump up Google ahead of MSN and maybe someday to the number one slot pushing out Yahoo! Either way the top 3 search engines will be constantly keeping tabs on the other with Yahoo and MSN having the most to lose and Google the most to gain.

Acquisitions – Yahoo

Since its creation Yahoo has acquired approximately 28 companies compared to Google’s 5. All of Google’s acquisitions have been of private firms whereas Yahoo has purchased both public and private companies. During the internet boom Yahoo made one of the biggest dot.com purchases ever with the $5.7 billion acquisition of Broadcast.com in July 1999. Broadcast.com was an online audio service created by Mark Cuban to stream live audio coverage of his favorite sporting events. Yahoo’s purchase of Broadcast.com made Cuban an internet legend, a billionaire and a future owner of the NBA’s Dallas Mavericks. At the time of the purchase Broadcast.com was a publicly traded company (BCST) who saw its stock rise over $7 to $125 after the announcement.

Yahoo’s first acquisition was for Net Controls in September 1997 for $1.4 million. Yahoo acquired ViaWeb, a developer of web commerce tools, for $49 million in stock in June 1998. In October 1998 Yahoo began its quest for free email service with the purchase of Four11 (Four11 offered a free email service via a product called RocketMail) for $92 million in stock. Today Yahoo’s free email service accounts for 40% of its overall traffic – the largest driver of traffic to the Yahoo network. Yahoo announced its acquisition of Geocities in January 1999 for $3.6 billion.

Yahoo jumped into the marketing world with the purchase of Yoyodyne in October 1998 for $29.6 million in stock. Yoyodyne allowed Yahoo to collect user data and act as an intermediary between its users and commerce clients. Yahoo purchased its popular Launch music site with its acquisition of Launch Media in June 2001 for $12 million. In December 2001 Yahoo purchased the online job search company HotJobs for approximately $436 million. Inktomi was purchased in December 2002 for $235 million followed by Overture in July 2003 for $1.63 billion. In April 2004 Yahoo purchased Kelkoo, a European comparison shopping site, for $579 million.

Acquisitions – Google

In January 2003 Google announced its purchase of Pyra Labs (Blogger), a weblog publishing tool which is currently the 32nd most visited site in the world (according to Alexa.com.) In June 2004 Google announced its purchase of Picasa, a photo management company based in Pasadena.

In June 2005 Google launched its amazing world satellite imaging tool called Google Earth. This technology was a direct result of its purchase of Keyhole in October 2004 which gained popularity with its satellite imagery during the commencement of the Gulf War in March 2003.

So far all of Google’s purchase acquisitions have been of private companies and therefore they are not required to disclose the financials of the purchase.

Originally published on July 8, 2005

Tom O’Keefe is an internet business consultant and the founder of Research Connect, Inc., a market research database. O’Keefe works with small businesses and start-ups to help develop an affordable and effective online strategy to maximize traffic and exposure via search engine optimization, internet marketing and web development.

For a website evaluation of your site please contact O’Keefe at 617-947-8071 or via tom[at]tomokeefe.com.

Research Connect is an integrated market research database and research service which connects leading researchers and consultants with the corporate and investment community.

Some, supposedly, legal matters defy the efforts of conscience prone jurists to place them under the knife of juridical dissection. Take, for instance, the sexual practices of consenting adults in the privacy of a bedroom. Just thirty years ago, the sodomy laws of ten of the thirteen original states made anal intercourse between homosexuals and between heterosexual men and women a crime. Then along came state Supreme Court decisions declaring such laws unconstitutional with the admonition that individual privacy is sacrosanct under the U.S. and state Constitutions. The “moral” laws, as they were commonly called, had been strictly enforced under 17th Century colonial jurisdictions when there was not a constitutional separation of church and state. The early Massachusetts Bay Colony was governed under puritanical law for nearly a hundred years in accordance with what the ruling Puritans considered as divine decrees set forth in the Bible. From 1640 until around 1750, a strict biblical code of morality was systematically enforced in the North American coastal region that was called New England, which was carried over into common law and eventually codified into state penal codes. Even after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, these “moral laws” were retained by Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Rhode Island, the violation of which was criminal in nature. But, despite their statutory presence, the enforceability of such laws after 1789, limiting the expression of affection between mature consenting individuals, remained essentially negligible. The impractical effect of laws passed by the federal and state legislatures with the intent of proscribing intimately personal relationships and processes, such as inter-racial marriage and abortion, is summed up in the sage expression, you can not legislate morality. In order to insure that such laws are never declared constitutional and enforced upon the people of the American republic, the federal judiciary was established. And the highest court in the land is the U.S. Supreme Court, where constitutionality is ultimately and finally determined.

Perhaps conservative federal judges, selected to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, go through a refiner’s fire, of sorts, causing the individual jurist to realize the true meaning of Henry David Thoreau’s motto, “That government is best that governs least.” To have in one’s hand the voting power to limit the personal freedom of an entire nation of people is quite an awesome responsibility. Such power causes the sincerely unbiased justice to think twice, if not thrice, about reversing previous decisions of the Supreme Court, to render them unconstitutional in favor of laws restricting civil rights. Roe v. Wade is such a decision which, if reversed, will affect the lives of millions of pregnant women throughout the country. I must believe that a majority of the “Brethren,” who comprised the Supreme Court in 1973, voted their conscience in stating that the federal government has no authority to legally dictate what a woman can and cannot do with her own body. There might have also existed in their minds an additional consideration about the inappropriateness of attempts to legislate morality. Perhaps reflection on the poignant history of religion meddling in civil and criminal law, and the human death and destruction caused thereby, prods the prudent legal scholar to advocate and retain laws which are not predicated upon religious values and traditions.

The presumed predictability of jurists, judges, and legal scholars to follow particular conservative and liberal patterns of legal determination has historically come back to ironically bite expectant American presidents in their hind parts. Of all the people to be labeled as either conservative or liberal constructionists, seasoned jurists sincerely dedicated to a case-by-case analysis of federal issues are not among them. President Theodore Roosevelt presumed that Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. could be relied on politically to endorse and advance his trust-busting agenda. In fact, according to Texas A&M historian H.W. Brands, Roosevelt’s intention for appointing Holmes, in 1902, to the high court was for Holmes to vote in accordance with presidential policy. Two years later, however, Holmes proved to be an independently minded jurist when he dissented along with the Supreme Court minority against the position of the government in the case of Northern Securities Co. v. U.S., 193 U.S. 400 (1904). This put a rift between Roosevelt and Holmes which became substantially wider when Holmes, ten years later, commented on his dissent in the Northern Securities case and repeated authoritatively a statement by a contemporary that, “what the boys like about Roosevelt is that he doesn’t give a damn about the law.”

Perhaps this is what the boys on the Hill are saying about George W. Bush and his inner-circle of cronies. Perhaps Bush’s appointment of John G. Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court is a statement of his presumption that Roberts will vote predictably in accordance with the President’s political expectations. Roberts has made quite a record for himself during his time working for the Executive Branch. He has it very plain concerning his unwavering stand on abortion rights. His ultra-conservative point of view has been established through the continual support he has given to militant abortion protesters in federal cases. As a Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts advocated the rights of abortion protesters to block access of women to reproductive health care clinics, a legal right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. In the case of Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263 (1993) (No 90-985), Roberts argued as amicus curiae (friends of the court) for the United States supporting Operation Rescue and six other individuals who routinely and forcibly blocked access of patients to reproductive health care clinics. In his intervening argument, Roberts asserted that the deliberate and forceful acts of the protesters did not amount to discrimination against women, even though only women could exercise the right to seek an abortion.

It would be interesting, if possible, to place Judge Roberts back in time to a circumstance where Afro-Americans were barred forcibly by a group of white people from patronizing a public theatre and a Supreme Court review of the constitutionality of the act ensued. Would he have then submitted to the Supreme Court what he asserted in the Bray case, that the deliberate and forceful acts of the protesters did not amount to discrimination against black people? I can see bias written all over Roberts as he presents himself to the Senate for confirmation. If the Senate cannot examine his Justice Department and judicial records and positively conclude that he made up his mind decades ago about the constitutionality of abortion, school prayer, and the general application of 5th and 14th Amendments to civil rights issues, while he was a sassy government attorney for the conservative consensus, there is something awry in the confirmation process.

The human rights of women regarding the disposition of their bodies are much too important an issue to be relegated to the capricious whims of a Republican-controlled Congress. Laws which attempt to classify a fetus inside of a woman as an entity protected by the U.S. Constitution are sorely lacking precedent, for the Constitution mentions only two categories of individuals protected by the 5th and 14th Amendments. These are those who have either been born or naturalized, and the unborn are not mentioned at all.

Natural and induced abortions have occurred since the advent of man. The induced procedure was performed frequently in the days of the venerable Thomas Jefferson, who obviously didn’t consider it an important enough issue to discuss publicly or in his personal writings. In fact, abortion didn’t become a controversial subject of social and religious debate until the middle of the 20th Century. At that time, a religious revivalism was occurring throughout the United States allowing political candidates to use the popularity of moral issues, predicated on religious principle, to attract rank-and-file voters. If the popular 1950’s radio evangelist preached that abortion was tantamount to murder and should be outlawed, and had influence over the minds of millions of American citizens, the pragmatic politician jumped at the opportunity to endorse the evangelist and the doctrines he taught in order to garner votes. Money has always been the mother’s milk of politics, and, by riding the popular social, moral, and religious issues, the shrewd politician can effectively use that money to buy his way into state and federal office. But just because a social issue, such as abortion, is given religious credence by evangelists and career politicians, the issue doesn’t, in any way, become a theological matter. This is what a discerning Supreme Court justice will have to seriously consider before casting a vote to reverse or affirm Roe v Wade. A sitting President cannot expect a prudent and unbiased justice to vote according to the political and religious winds blowing in favor of, or against, a particular standing Supreme Court precedent. Perhaps that is why he has nominated Mr. Roberts to be a rubber stamp for the neo-conservative agenda.

Norton R. Nowlin holds M.A. and B.A. degrees from the University of Texas at Tyler plus one year of law school at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, in San Diego, California. In addition to the foregoing, Mr. Nowlin’s educational prowess extends 70 semester hours beyond a master’s degree in sociology, history, and law. Mr. Nowlin is presently a free-lance paralegal. He is also a published essayist, free-lance writer, and poet. He is married, the father of three grown children, and resides with his wife, Diane, in Mountlake Terrace, Washington.

It used to be that when you got married, you simply merged your finances. But that isn’t the case in today’s world. Finances are more complicated. Lots of people bring debt, student loans, child support and emotional ties to their money into their relationships. Sometimes a joint checking account doesn’t work out and separate accounts are better. Sometimes separate accounts don’t work.

What you have to do is sit down and talk about all of your options. Discuss your finances with each other, openly and honestly. Make the decision together.

The traditional option is having a joint checking account. This is the easiest method when it comes down to merging your finances. But you both must be accountable for what goes in and what goes out. This option requires a lot of communication. You have to both check the account register regularly and be responsible for putting in debits. If you have debt issues, don’t keep receipts, don’t write down checks and have a habit of spending without thinking, this may not be the best method.

The one-two method is having one joint account and two separate accounts. There are many combinations of this. Many couples will set up a joint checking account and keep their own individual accounts. They each put an agreed upon amount into the joint checking to pay the household bills and expenses. This method allows each person to keep their own financial freedom.

You will have to determine how much each person devotes to the joint checking. Start by setting up a budget to determine the monthly expenses. If you both earn about the same amount, you will each contribute half. Don’t forget to both contribute to your savings for your shared financial goals, such as vacations and college educations for your children.

Any pre-existing credit card debt, student loans or other loans will come out of your own personal checking account.

How do you determine how much each person puts into the joint account if you make different salaries. Start by adding your two incomes together. Divide the lower salary by the combined salaries to get the percentage of income from the lower paid spouse. For example, $50,000 plus $25,000 equals a joint income of $75,000. You would then divide $25,000 by $75,000 and come out with .33, which is 33%. The lower paid spouse will pay 33% of the bills because they bring 33% of the money to the table. The higher paid spouse pays the remaining 66%.

Personally, we keep a joint checking account. We tried separate accounts but kept borrowing from each other and it was confusing and didn’t really work for us. My husband makes 95% of our income, so he pays all the monthly expenses. My income goes straight into savings for our financial goals. That works for us.

Our good friends have separate accounts. In fact, there marriage was on the rocks for years until they split their finances. They each contribute to the household expenses, but for the rest of their individual stuff, they are on their own.

Either way, you have to have communication. You have to talk to each other about what is going on. Be open and honest. You don’t want money to separate you, even though you have separate accounts. Be generous with each other and wise in your decisions.

Martin Lukac, represents http://www.RateEmpire.com, a finance web-company specializing in real estate/mortgage market. We specialize in daily updates, rate predictions, mortgage rates and more. Find low home loan mortgage interest rates from hundreds of mortgage companies! Visit http://www.RateEmpire.com today