My work provided me with a BlackBerry a little over one year ago, and I've been very happy with my productivity and ability to communicate compared to other non-PDA phones.

However, with my new BlackBerry, I've run into a major problem design wise - which from what I understand has existed for quite some time, although my older BlackBerry never encountered this.

The problem I am referring to is the dreaded "Your battery is too low for radio use" message. Now, common sense dictates that if the battery is too low, then I will not be able to make/receive calls, surf the web etc...because my phone will shut off.

What the engineers at Research In Motion failed to do however, was explore the programming behind this issue, as it produces possible safety implications. After the message comes up and I am unable to use my phone, I am still unable to do so even after I have plugged the phone in to charge. So not only am I unable to use my phone, but I am unable to use my phone until the charge has reached a certain level. Lets say someone is stranded on the highway and they are calling for help, but their phone dies. They'll have to wait to call back until after the phone has charged. Common sense engineering would dictate that the phone would be able to receive a signal while charging, no matter what the battery level, unless the phone is drawing more power than the charger can supply, which in that case, a more powerful charger should have been designed.

Here's hoping that RIM updates some software to allow calls while charging, or at the very least, implements this feature in newer designs. I for one will not be purchasing a BlackBerry outside of my company provided one, and will look towards other PDA phones from HTC, Palm or other vendors if this simple issue still exists.

As we sit at home spending time with our families, it helps to put the meaning of this day into perspective. Yes, we have celebrations and fireworks, but this is when the country finally came together as one, stepping away from the British and developing on our own, carving a new history and changing the course of the world from that day forward.

John Adams may have been off by a couple days, but he summarizes the meaning of this day better than I could ever hope to:

The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.

You will think me transported with Enthusiasm but I am not. -- I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. -- Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means. And that Posterity will tryumph in that Days Transaction, even altho We should rue it, which I trust in God We shall not.

God Bless America, John Adams, and all of the founding fathers and ancestors for the sacrifices put forth so we could have the freedoms we now have today.

Barack Obama held an town hall meeting in Dayton recently speaking about a "secure energy future." During the meeting, he made the following statement:

If Iran decided to shut down the petroleum-rich Strait of Hormuz tomorrow, they believe oil would skyrocket to $300-a-barrel in minutes, a price that one speculator predicted would result in $12-a-gallon gas. $12 a gallon.

While "one speculator" may have predicted this, it needs to be looked at in perspective. For starters, of the eighty-six million barrels of oil produced per day, Iran produces merely four of those - 4.6%. However, the Strait of Hormuz, relatively small at a length of 26 miles, has 25% of the world's oil supply pass through it. In itself, this poses a major problem, should Iran shut down this area.

However, Iran simply doesn't have the power, militarily speaking, to do this, and would have many other countries outside of the US breathing down their neck should this happen. In fact, the United States is on the record saying they will not let this happen. Vice-Admiral Kevin Cosgriff, the commander of the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet had the following to say regarding the Strait of Hormuz:

Iran will not attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz and we will not allow them to close the Strait of Hormuz. I can't say it anymore clearly than that.

Like the earlier story about Iran's photoshopping issues, this is simply Iran, and Ahmadinejad trying to flex their muscle on a global level. Unfortunately for Iran, like the earlier story, it is simply smoke and mirrors. Iran at the worst could take four million barrels of oil off the market. At best, they would be smart to take no action, for I believe if they were to try to impose their will upon the Strait of Hormuz, it would lead not only the United States, but other allied nations to hostilities with Iran - A battle the Iranians cannot win.

Iran's problem of adding a missile to a photo aren't over yet. In addition to simply photoshopping the picture (albeit horribly,) the Iranians have more problems - besides flapping their gums over the capabilities of the superior Iranian forces, it turns out that the missiles aren't even the 2,000 KM range Shahab-3 missiles which are capable of reaching Israel, but rather older missiles based on the German V-2 missile used in WW2, which compared to today's military technology is a joke.

The pictures being shown with multiple missiles (OK the last pic is a joke) has turned out to be one missile, fired from different angles.

Drudge reports that the New York Times will be reporting this tomorrow.

Do you remember elementary school science and biology class? The part where they explained the process of photosynthesis, where plants convert carbon dioxide into Oxygen comes to mind. A very simple topic, one that makes sense to fifth graders. However, in the category of "they needed a study to tell us this," German scientists determined that "Higher CO2 levels may be good for plants."

The dangerous rise in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may be troubling scientists and world leaders but it could prove to be a boon for plants, German researchers said Tuesday.

Increasing exposure to carbon dioxide appears to boost crop yields, Hans-Joachim Weigel of the Johann Heinrich von Thuenen Institute for rural areas, forestry and fisheries in the central city of Brunswick told AFP.

While alarmists will do anything to push the global warming agenda, many of us realize that the events happening are cyclical, and that common sense will eventually prevail. Rising CO2 levels are not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, the greatest increase in CO2 levels was before 1940, which doesn't coincide with the "facts" being purported by environmentalists. Each decade there is a new environmental threat. In the 1970s there was global cooling. The 1980s gave us the acid rain scare. In the 1990s we were informed that the Ozone layer is disappearing. Finally this decade, we are being spoon fed global warming as to have control asserted upon us.

Those who believe the information on man made global warming will find excuses to disregard the data presented, but the facts that myself and other logical folks look at are that global warming is not a scientific fact, nor is it a consensus. There is room for debate and it is still theory. Demonizing those who speak against it are simply pushing an agenda.

The Republicans have an uphill battle against the Democrats this year, no question about it. Barack Obama is an amazing orator, the economy isn't doing too well, and President Bush and the Republican brand are extremely unpopular. Fortunately, for those on the right, there is hope, assuming the GOP uses a strategy, sticks with it, and other issues fall into place.

Before we begin, lets be upfront - John McCain isn't the chosen candidate of conservatives. They don't like his maverick style and willingness to work with the opposition - something liberals wouldn't like if the roles were reversed, but independents love. With the talk of both Ralph Nader and Bob Barr polling well, third parties are feeling good. But voting for a third party is still like wasting a vote. With the exception of Ross Perot in 1992, there hasn't been a "successful" third party candidate arguably since Theodore Roosevelt.

With that being said, the Republicans need a clear message, and some luck to win in November. If executed properly, assuming they don't destroy the country, they can build a strong conservative backbone for years to come.

As it stands now, McCain has the foreign policy experience that Obama simply can't try to compete with, even with Wesley Clark's recent comments. The War in Iraq is the one consistent issue where Americans feel John McCain is better suited to be President. Run with it.

However, McCain's economic background took a hit when he claimed that economics was not something that he understood. With the economy doing poorly, and consumer confidence down, the perfect running mate to complement McCain's foreign policy experience, is a savvy businessman like Mitt Romney. Had the economy in January and February be what it was now, I have a feeling Romney would have received the nomination. Romney has the best business background of nearly any Presidential candidate and has been successful with everything he has been involved with. He has helped to turn around major companies such as Staples, Domino's, and Brookstone, while also taking over the $379 million shortfall of the 2002 Olympics, then turning it into over $100 million profit. Needless to say he knows how a business works, and if anyone can help McCain balance the budget in the next 4-8 years, it will be Mitt. Romney won't help McCain in Massachusetts, but could help my swing state of Michigan with his ties to the state (Romney's father, George, was governor of Michigan from 1963-1969.) It doesn't hurt that he also won the Republican primary here.

McCain's age is definitely an issue, which is why Romney would be a better choice than the highly regarded governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal. As much as I like and respect Governor Jindal, he is simply too young (Age 37) and inexperienced which is one of the attacks used against Obama. Given McCain's age in relation, voters will want to be confident that the person only one step away from the Presidency is ready to step into the role. The choice would also have consequences in the sense that the opponents would compare McCain to Jindal in terms of age, citing Jindal being half the man McCain is, resonating with voters.

Jindal is definitely a rising star in the Republican party, and McCain will most likely only serve one term. This would leave the door open for Romney to run as President, presumably on the economic turnaround he engineered, and put Jindal in the number two slot. Romney could then build on his successes, and run for a second term, leaving the door open for Jindal to run in 2020 at the more experienced age of 49.

As stated before, this isn't something that will likely happen unless all of the cards fell into place. Defeating Obama won't be an easy task, but this election appears to be focused on the swing states, even if Obama appears poised for a blowout. The electoral map will likely be similar to that of 2004, with a few minor changes.

I suspect that McCain's best, and possibly only chance to surpass Obama, is during the debates. Obama is an excellent speaker, but doesn't have the experience or record to go in depth on many issues. Talking about hope and change might work for commercials, but eventually voters will want to see a concrete plan of what he stands for, how he will handle issues, etc...Should McCain prove to make him look foolish in national debates, the Obama train may finally derail. That possibility is why Obama hasn't committed to the townhall debates with McCain. He has nothing to gain at this moment, and everything to lose.

Executed properly, the Republicans can see much more time in the White House. Until the election draws to a close, we can only wonder.

I recently stumbled upon some statistics on our economy, and how it is being portrayed by politicians. A few months old, but relevant to our political climate.

What's worse is how the opposition interprets the data:

“Our economy is the healthiest it has been in three decades.” (President Bill Clinton, State of the Union Address, January 23, 1996)

“The bottom line is that this administration is the owner of the worst jobs record since Herbert Hoover." (Senator Charles Schumer, Press Release, March 7, 2008)

Even the media isn't immune - CNN tries to exaggerate the facts as well.

Certain folks will say whatever they can to advance their agenda. The sad part is that they don't actually care about these statistics, or even the American people, but only what spin they can put on the news to make themselves and/or their party look better. This also applies to any politician on the right that does the same, mind you.

Glenn Beck's Summer comedy tour is coming to theaters across the country. As someone who tries to listen to Glenn as much as possible, I'm looking forward to finally seeing him live, in addition to seeing how live HD satellite technology works in theaters.

Assuming my wife decides not to give birth to our son that day or shortly before, I will be attending in my area. It also helps that tickets are only $20 to see it on the big screen, compared to the $90 for a live ticket.

Many of those on the left despise Beck, if only for his feud with Keith Olbermann, who they are spoon fed information from on a daily basis, including referring to Beck on multiple occasions as the "worst person."

I like Beck's common sense approach to many of the issues, even if there are issues with disagree on (Video Games, North American Union...)

If you live in the Metro Detroit area and are interested in attending, contact me and I'll give you details on where I will be.

Glenn beck is the host of a nationally syndicated radio program, with the third largest audience in the country from 9AM - 12PM EST weekdays, and a news commentary show on CNN Headline News weeknights at 7PM and 9PM. He is a New York Times Best Selling Author of the recent book, An Inconvenient Book. For a theatre near you, and to purchase tickets, check out Fathom Events.

Recently I learned about a new service that lets you customize your voicemail past anything of that the cell phone companies have allowed in the past. The service, YouMail, which began in 2007, has some excellent features not included by our cell phone carriers.

For starters, one of the main features is visual voicemail, which is most popular from being implemented on the Apple iPhone. Visual voicemail lets you listed to your messages as you want, rather than having to listen to each message until you get to the one you want.

My favorite feature of YouMail is the ability to select a custom voicemail for each contact. I have personalized messages for my wife, friends and family, but have my business greeting for my co-workers. I keep telling others how great this tool would be for salespeople, being able to personally greet each customer, rather than using the generic voicemail, for that personal touch. My brother-in-law, a former Marine, has a nice military greeting, while my dad has one that emulates Dell tech support. In addition to this, there are plenty of "ditchmail" greetings, so if you have an annoying person or telemarketer calling you, you can give their number an error or out of service message to not deal with them.

By default, YouMail assigns a "smart greeting" to contacts, which personalizes the message according to their name. The features don't end here however. You can have a voicemail to text service, which is useful for those in meetings who don't want to rudely disturb others to get up and check messages. In addition, there is an expanded Caller ID system in place. While I may receive a call from a number that isn't familiar, when I look at my missed calls or voicemails on YouMail, it will more often than not, show the company name, if not unlisted.

I have YouMail set up very simply - As I have a BlackBerry with unlimited data, I simply receive an email on my device whenever there is a voicemail for me. I can choose which messages to listen to via the visual voicemail on my phone's browser, can listen the old fashioned way, or can even listen to the messages on my PC via the YouMail website. That option is the best for those who like to save everything, as each voicemail can be saved in MP3 form for later playback.

YouMail is available for most phones and carriers in North America. I highly recommend checking it out - you won't be disappointed.