Archive | Business RSS feed for this section

Antonio “L.A.” Reid: Charlie Rose Interview

24 Jun

Ray: If I could choose any job in the world, it would be the one belonging to Antonio “L.A.” Reid. Although I remember hearing Andre 3000 mention his name in an old Outkast song, I never knew who he was until I considered a career in the music business. But after hearing terrible song after terrible song on the radio and stupid video after stupid video on television, I became uninterested in pursuing a career in the music business. However, I must say that after listening to this interview he brings up a lot of the same feelings I once had in college. Anyone looking for a behind the scenes career in music should definitely know about L.A. Reid. He’s pretty inspirational:

Part 1

Part 2


The BP Oil Spill Shows America’s True Enemy

30 May

Ray: By now, everyone in the world is aware of the mega-disaster oil spill caused by British Petroleum in the gulf of Mexico. United States President Barack Obama has had his hands tied trying to deal with the problem. All of the technology in the world and all of the brightest engineers can’t seem to figure out how to stop an estimated 210,000 gallons of oil a day (according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) from being pumped into the gulf.

This oil spill will prove to have an extremely negative impact on the environment for decades and possibly for generations to come. In other words, this is nothing to dismiss as just another thing in the news. Compound the ecological ramifications of this oil spill with the fact that BP has not been forthcoming with information and the United States government had been corrupt in its dealings with big oil companies and you will easily ascertain that big oil companies are designed to destroy humanity. I would take it a step further and argue that the existence of big business in general means death and despair for the human race.

What has become clear over the past few centuries is that corporate entities exists with the sole purpose of keeping themselves alive. To do that, they will conduct business practices that are detrimental to everyone, including the humans who run these companies. For this reason, I am unsure as to why the founders of this great nation chose to treat corporations as individuals when they instinctively act in a way to destroy real people. This should be considered one of the many original flaws of the constitution and should be changed to reflect the true nature of corporations.

Further evidence of big business acting contrary the best interest of real people can also be seen in the financial sector where large banks chose to underwrite risky investments which ultimately lead to millions of people losing their homes, jobs, and any chance at providing a secure future for their children. Big business literally took away people’s rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Instead, many are left angry, confused, and have lost trust that their federal government can and will look out for their best interests. I would argue that because of the way governments treat corporations, there’s no way they can look out for the best interests of real people. This can be best summed in the Bible where Jesus explains that “No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.” It is obvious who our government loves and who it despises.

If my position sounds anti-free market, then I would like to question your definition of “free market”. Is a free market one in which big companies pay lawyers millions of dollars to lobby elected officials for beneficial laws, tax breaks, and rights to conduct business when and where they probably shouldn’t? Is a free market one in which large banks which are entrusted by the public to protect savings are allowed to gamble the publics money away and then charge the federal government for the bill? Is a free market one in which big business pays off  countries around the world for the ability to unmercifully pollute the environment while creating products?  That is not the free market at all. That is corruption. Our federal government has failed us at every level from protecting us from out biggest enemy; big business.

The war on terrorism should come second to the war on big business. If we as a nation don’t do more to protect ourselves from corporate interests, then you can expect more disasters that will quickly destroy out environment. You can expect more financial system failures in which millions lose their retirement savings, homes, and jobs. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the idea of exchanging currency for goods and services. I believe that business run correctly will be rewarded with customers. What I hope to see changed is how the federal government allows business to bully its citizens and rape us of our land and treasure.

I urge President Obama to take a stance and defend us from big business. Bin Laden didn’t raise unemployment to extraordinarily high levels. Bin Laden didn’t leave middle America on the brink of financial ruin. Bin laden didn’t dump millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, destroying millions of animals as it spreads. Please recognize who our real enemies are and change the rules that allow them to hurt us.

How Billionaires Takeover Companies: Carl Icahn

7 Jul

Ray: Businessmen, investors, and aspiring entrepreneurs should all know who Carl Icahn is. He’s made billions of dollars using a basic investment philosophy: find companies that are under performing, buy large stakes of those companies, demand that changes be made, and reap the benefits from a sale or improved operations.

Icahn has or has had major positions (stock ownership) of companies like RJR Nabisco, TWA, Texaco, Phillips Petroleum, Western Union, Gulf & Western, Viacom, Uniroyal, E-II (Culligan and Samsonite), American Can, USX, Marvel Comics, Revlon, Time Warner and Motorola. He has become notorious for leading proxy battles (votes submitted by shareholders) seeking to oust a company’s Board of Directors as he sees fit.

He is currently in the news for leading the fight of Yahoo! shareholders seeking to sell all or some of the company to Microsoft. Here is a copy of the letter that Carl Icahn addressed to Yahoo! shareholders:


Carl C. Icahn
767 Fifth Avenue, 47th Floor
New York, NY 10153

July 7, 2008

Dear Yahoo! Shareholders:

During the past week I have spoken frequently with Steve Ballmer, CEO of Microsoft. Several of our conversations have lasted as long as an hour. Also, a few of our discussions have taken place while other top executives, such as Kevin Johnson, participated. Our talks centered on the industry in general but, more importantly, on how Yahoo! and Microsoft can do a transaction together. Steve made it abundantly clear that, due to his experiences with Yahoo! during the past several months, he cannot negotiate any transaction with the current board. His logic is simple. If and when a transaction was consummated, Microsoft would be guaranteeing a great deal of capital at closing. However, a transaction could take at least nine months and perhaps longer to obtain regulatory clearance in the U.S., Europe, and elsewhere. During that period, if the current board and management team of Yahoo! mismanage the company (and their recent track record is far from reassuring), Microsoft would be putting its money at risk and a great deal could be lost.

For example, in a transaction to purchase the whole company, a very large amount of capital would be due at closing. Even in an “alternate” transaction, where just the “Search” assets were purchased, large guarantees would have to be made and, again, large sums could be lost if the company was mismanaged. Microsoft perceives this risk may be quite high with the current board and management in place. However, Steve made it clear to me that if a new board were elected, he would be interested in discussing a major transaction with Yahoo!, such as either a transaction to purchase the “Search” function with large financial guarantees or, in the alternative, purchasing the whole company. He stated that Microsoft would be willing to enter into discussion immediately if the new board that has been nominated were elected. While there can be no assurance of a future transaction, as many of you know, I have negotiated successfully a large number of transactions over the past years. If and when elected, I strongly believe that in very short order the new board would, subject to its fiduciary duties, be presenting to shareholders either a purchase offer for the whole company or a very attractive offer to purchase “Search” with large guarantees. I hope to continue to be speaking to Steve over the next few weeks; however, since I do not as yet represent the Yahoo! board, both Steve and I do not wish to get into details over price, or even which of these transactions makes the most sense.

Much has been said about how badly the Yahoo! board has “botched up” negotiations with Microsoft over the past months. There is no need to keep pointing out the mistakes I believe Yahoo! made by not immediately taking a $33 offer made by Microsoft. But one thing is clear — Jerry Yang and the current board of Yahoo! will not be able to “botch up” a negotiation with
Microsoft again, simply because they will not have the opportunity.

Our company is now moving toward a precipice. It is currently losing market share in its “Search” function; our current Board has failed to bring in a talented and experienced CEO to replace Jerry Yang and return Jerry to his role as Chief Yahoo!, and currently it is witnessing a meaningful exodus of talent. It is no secret that Google (which hired a great operator as CEO) continues to dramatically outperform Yahoo!. According to publicly available information, Google’s income from operations grew 59% per year over the last two years while Yahoo!’s shrank 21% per year. However, none of the above has caused the Yahoo! board to hesitate in paying themselves $10,000 per week. IT IS TIME FOR A CHANGE.

If elected, I have little doubt that the new board, subject to its fiduciary duties, will do what the current board will not do, i.e.,

  • Immediately start negotiation with Microsoft to sell the whole company or, in the alternative, sell “Search” with large guarantees.
  • Move expeditiously to replace Jerry Yang with a new CEO with operating experience.

Click here to watch an interview with Carl Icahn

Profile of a Black Billionaire: Mr. Michael Lee-Chin

17 Apr

Ray: People often ask why am I obsessed with money and being rich. I simply reply that I’m not obsessed with money, but I am obsessed with freedom and the ability to pursue my passions in life (which are many). In my opinion, having wealth is the best way to do so.

People also ask why I focus a great deal of my writings on issues that affect the Black community. Well, first of all, I am much more familiar with issues that affect the Black community so it’s easier for me to have an opinion on these issues. Because I know that the Black community suffers from many insecurity complexes, I like to highlight those Black people in the world who have risen above the fray to become outstanding individuals. By doing so, I hope to show others in the Black community that there are other ways of “making it” besides playing ball, becoming an entertainer, or selling drugs.

With that said, I decided to write about someone that I have admired for several years now. I would like to introduce everyone to Mr. Michael Lee-Chin. Enjoy…


Michael Lee-Chin was born in Port Antonio, Portland, Jamaica in 1951, with a biracial background of Chinese-Jamaican heritage. He was raised by his mother and step-father along with 8 other siblings. His mother Gloria, sold Avon products and worked as a bookkeeper while his step-father Vincent Chen, managed a local grocery store.

After finishing high school, Michael Lee-Chin left Jamaica to attend McMaster University in Canada. While in college, he earned money by working on cruise ships and at an aluminum plant. Despite his attempt to make money, he was not able to afford his college tuition. To make matters worse, his parents were unable to provide the financial support that he needed to stay in school. Facing the end of his college career, he decided to seek assistance from the Jamaican Government.

“From an early age, my mother told me that there were so many of us that if I was to get anything in life, I would have to get it myself. So I did.” – Michael Lee-Chin

A self-determined young fellow, Mr. Lee-Chin was prompted to use his savings to fly back to Jamaica and convince then Prime Minister Hugh Shearer to sponsor his Canadian education. Through his own determination and the willingness of the Jamaican Government to invest in the future of one its young people, Mr. Lee-Chin was able to return to McMaster University after securing a C$15,000 scholarship to pay for his education.

Michael Lee-Chin graduated with a degree in civil engineering and returned to Jamaica to work on highway infrastructure projects. Unsatisfied with his future prospects, Mr. Lee-Chin decided to move to Toronto where he accepted a job as a bar bouncer. Although the pay was lousy by anyone’s standards, he was fortunate to meet a mutual fund salesman from the Investor’s Group. After learning about the earnings potential of being a mutual fund salesman, Mr. lee-Chin soon after applied to Investor’s Group, a move that would change his life forever.

While spending time at Investor’s Group and eventually Regal Capital Planning, he studied financial markets and investment strategies; particularly those of Warren Buffet, Benjamin Graham, and Kenneth Thomson. In 1983, (the year of my birth :), Mr. Lee-Chin secured a C$500,000 loan from the Continental Bank of Canada and invested it into the Mackenzie Financial Group at C$1.00 per share. In 5 years, that investment became worth C$3.5 Million.

This newfound wealth would allow him to establish the Berkshire Group, a financial services company, in 1985. In 1987, he purchased Advancement Investment Company (AIC) for $200,000 although the company had holdings of about C$800,000 at that time. Today, AIC controls about C$12Billion and has about one million investors. Among many of his other investments, Mr. Lee-Chin used AIC to purchase 75 percent of the Commercial Bank of Jamaica for $127 Million (USD) from the Jamaican Government as a response to Jamaica’s financial crisis during the 1990s.

Mr. Lee-Chin is also a noteworthy philanthropist. In 2008, he donated J$108 Million (about 1.48 Million USD) to Seventh-day Adventist owned and operated Northern Caribbean University. Mr. Lee-Chin also donated C$30 Million to the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM) for the construction of the Michael Lee-Chin Crystal.

Forbes currently lists Michael Lee-Chin as #677 of the richest people in the world with an estimated net worth of $1.8 Billion USD. He has received many awards for his outstanding leadership in business, including the ‘Harry Jerome Award’ for ‘Business Leader of the Decade’ in 2002. He continues to invest heavily in Jamaica and in other Caribbean Islands, buying assets from real estate to communications infrastructure. At age 57, he shows no signs of slowing down anytime soon.

Michael Lee-Chin is someone that I look up to and hope to have the privilege to meet with one day, hopefully to discuss a business deal. He exemplifies hard work and the sense of “never forgetting where you come from.” I hope that this piece inspires others to achieve greatness just as Mr. Lee-Chin has. Anything is possible if you have faith, determination, and a plan.

The Michael Lee-Chin Crystal

The Michael Lee-Chin Crystal at ROM

Signs of a Recession

27 Mar

99-cents.jpg Ray: The other day I was talking to a couple of friends about the recession that the United States is facing and how the average American is being affected by it. No other story was more revealing than the one my friend Tre told me that day. It basically went something like this:

“I used to go to the 99 Cents Store to buy my favorite drink. It usually comes in a 6-pack. I knew the economy was bad because when I went to buy it this time, it came in a 4-pack. What the hell?”

That’s hilarious. As you can see, real people are being affected in real ways by the changes in the economy. Please share with us YOUR stories about how the recession has affected your life. We look forward to hearing from you.

Carlos Slim – The Richest Man You Never Knew

25 Mar

Carlos Slim

Ray: According to several publications, Carlos Slim is either the richest or 2nd richest person in the world. When you’re worth about $60 Billion Dollars, does it really matter at that point? What does matter though, is how a 68 year-old guy who was born and raised in Mexico (thanks Charlie) was able to amass such a significant fortune in a nation that most investors know little about.

Carlos Slim may have studied engineering at the University Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, but the true wealth of knowledge is based on his understanding of economics. In fact, it is his ability to find and purchase undervalued companies that allowed him to generate billions of dollars when those troubled companies became profitable.

Although Carlos Slim primarily invests in telecommunications, he is also a big player in the Mexican insurance industry. A man of discipline and frugality, Carlos Slim is less concerned with the material affects that most would attribute to a Billionaire. Instead, his focus remains on perfecting his craft and helping his children develop the ability to master economic principals.

Carlos Slim is definitely a person that I recommend everyone does a little research on. His investment strategies are some of the best the world has ever known. Although a financial leader in Latin America, he has captured the admiration from investors all over the world.

Check out this short video clip for more about Carlos Slim:

The 2nd Amendment of the Unites States Constitution – The Debate

7 Mar

The Second Amendment of the United States of America Constitution:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

There is an ongoing national debate over the purpose and the relevance of the Second amendment. Due to the high incidence of crime from gun violence in recent years, this debate is rightfully justified. The country witnessed massacres across college campuses, high schools, and even elementary schools (recall that PA Amish community shooting). Guns were even used to kill dozens of people at various shopping malls around the country. But perhaps the biggest problem with guns revolves around inner cities where gang members and hoodlums use guns to kill each other and innocent bystanders at very alarming rates.

With this being the setting for the national debate on gun control, it is time that Seth and I formed an opinion on the matter that will hopefully address this issue in a thoughtful and meaningful way. In order to do so, we have researched many popular and unpopular opinions that we considered when writing this piece. Enjoy.



Ray: Because there are many opinions on the issue of gun control already circulating out there in the world, I will choose to make my opinion short, potent, and to the point. Here it is:

Every law abiding citizen should be allowed to carry a gun in order to protect themselves from a myriad of various perils. The 2nd Amendment was not written as rule of that particular day, but it was intentionally meant to serve as a clause that protects citizens from their government. Don’t you remember how afraid of tyranny the founding fathers were? You should also know that tyranny is the state of being under the influence of an oppressive power, not necessarily a government (keep that in mind).

A wise man once said that the 1st Amendment was written to give us our rights and the 2nd Amendment was written to protect them. To this affect, I must agree.

I would also like to point out that the guns are not responsible for the deaths of people, but it is the people themselves who are responsible. The undeniable truth is that human beings have been killing each other since the first family as describe in the Bible. In other words, be eliminating guns, you do not eliminate the element of human nature where murder is a fact of life. It can’t be swept under the rug. We can’t deny this truth so we must learn to deal with it.

The other obvious point in this debate is that LAW ABIDING CITIZENS DON’T COMMIT THE CRIMES, THE CRIMINALS DO. By making guns illegal, you’re only hurting the people who don’t commit crimes. By definition, a criminal is someone who has no or little regard for the law and breaks it. In other words, by making guns illegal you don’t stop the criminals from getting guns. Instead, you disarm the law abiding citizens that would otherwise protect themselves from these criminals. I would like to go one step further and say that criminals are fully aware that an overwhelming majority of their victims do not carry weapons of self defense.

In a practical situation, I imagine myself with a family in a nice sized home. I’d have a loving wife and several adorable children. I can not fathom a scenario where someone would break into my home with the intent to harm and terrorize my family and I wasn’t able to protect them. Those who scream for gun control would say that I should call the police. If I was to do that, they’d arrive to a gruesome scene of a slaughtered family. However, if I am allowed to carry a weapon according to my rights in the 2nd Amendment, then that bad guy goes down and my family will be saved. Honestly, that’s how I think of this law whenever there’s a debate. I MUST have the right to protect myself and my family. That’s not debatable.

What is debatable is to what extent there shouild be gun regulation. I remember one idea from Chris Rock who said, “All bullets should cost $5,000… there’s be no innocent bystanders.” As funny as that is, I think that’s a viable option. Just think about it. Another solution is what many politicians are already considering which is updating the registration process to include accurate and real-time information about gun owners. If you don’t think that’s the issue, chew on this: in all of the gun crimes in New York, 98% of the guns used came from out of state (according to Fox News). Registration reform is important because it will allow us to keep better tabs on the guns, bullets, buyer, and seller of ALL weapons.

My final solution is to significantly increase the penalty for being caught with an illegal fire-arm, using an illegal fire-arm to commit a crime, and selling/giving a registered fire-arm to an unregistered person. I’m talking 20 year prison sentence minimums. It’s time to get tough on these criminally minded fools. I would also charge all gang-members with charges of DOMESTIC TERRORISM because essentially, that’s what it is. It’s not right that law abiding, tax paying citizens are being terrorized in their communities and they deserve better.

In fact, I would like to reiterate a concept that many Americans still don’t fully understand. That is, you can’t fix problems by ignoring the symptoms. Gun violence is a direct result of a number of issues this country is facing starting with a broken education system. There are also medical, economic, and lobbyist components that contribute to the abuse of the right to bear arms. My argument stands in line with the idea that you don’t stop teen pregnancy by banning sex, you don’t stop illegal drug use by enacting a ‘War On Drugs’, and you don’t stop murders and accidents by banning guns. The onus is on the will of the individual to make better decisions and the country to raise it’s moral standards.

Finally, I would just like to mention that Barack Obama (he better win), Hillary Clinton, and John McCain all support the 2nd Amendment and agree that the registration process of guns should be addressed, but the right to own guns is indeed, a right. It should also be noted that most gun control advocates aren’t in favor of disbanding the 2nd Amendment, but they would rather slow the process of acquiring a gun by adding more stipulations. There is also the issue of Gun Free Zones which is adequately explained here .

Laws Don’t prevent crimes, they only provide the means by which to punish the criminals. Either all guns disappear, or we all have the right to bear arms in a lawful and well documented manner. I think the latter is more likely to happen.

That’s my view. You can’t depend on security guards or police to protect you 24 hours a day. Criminals will use guns rather or not they are banned so why put law-abiding citizens at a disadvantage? If criminals knew that the odds of their next victim carrying a weapon was high, they would think twice before committing a crime. See Texas and Nevada crime rates for details.

P.S. – Sorry that it wasn’t short after all. I guess it’s all relative.


Ray, I can’t tell you how excited I am that we disagree on this issue. In no terms will this be short, and I think you may have opened somewhat of a can of worms. Let the debate begin.

We are a nation of laws.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is perhaps the single most debated clause of American legislation today. It is hard to say what it definitively states, but its most common use is the regulation – or prohibition thereof – of guns. Groups both in favor of and opposed to restricting the right to “keep and bear arms” use it to defend their position. The Amendment today reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If you read that and were somewhat confused by the sentence structure, you understand the problem with this Amendment, but the confusion doesn’t end there. On top of that, there is another commonly used and interchangeable version of the Second Amendment. The differences are in capitalization and punctuation, but it further exemplifies the difficulty surrounding this debate. These slight changes have the ability to change the interpretation of the Second Amendment.

You can blame the problems understanding the Amendment on our public school system today. The beginning of the Second Amendment is written with what is called an ablative absolute construction. This type of phrase is common in Latin, a language whose rules our founding fathers were eminently familiar with. Removing the first comma, the above version becomes more easily understood. Well what does it mean then? As I read it, a more simple translation of the Second Amendment reads:

Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the sovereignty and security of a nation, and because the citizens will make up the militia, the right of the citizens of that nation to have and use weapons for that militia shall not be infringed.

Now this is where the debate begins. It seems to me that the right of the citizens to keep and use weapons is inextricably tied to their function as part of the militia. When the Bill of Rights was drafted there was a heavy debate about the need and potential harm of a standing army to the nation. Today there isn’t a second thought about it, but we have to remember that this was a time when people were fiercely suspicious of governments and their potential for tyrannical rule, thus the need for a Bill of Rights to protect people from the government.

If you look at the evolution of the clause and also the history of the right to own a weapon in English common law, written law, and tradition (in all of which we find the origination of our laws), the relationship between participating in the militia and the need for weapons is clear. For further clarification, I have below posted the Senate’s final draft that was sent to the House. Because people make up the militia, and a militia needs weapons, the government will not prohibit people from having weapons. Furthermore, the phrase “bear arms” is historically tied to the idea of military service and national defense.

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

I’ll now move on to Ray’s views. I agree that the Second Amendment was written to protect our rights, but from enemies foreign, not domestic. I also agree that guns don’t kill people; people kill people. When Ray talks about law abiding citizens being victims of making guns illegal, I disagree. Everyone in society will benefit [from a ban on weapons].

If you don’t know stats for homicide rates by gun, by nation, look them up. We kill more people per capita in the U.S. than any other nation. Here in Philadelphia we have a serious gun problem. Because there is a large rural population in this state, guns laws are lax and there is easy access to them. However, as I hold a degree in Criminal Justice, I know that most people who are killed by firearms know their killer, and are associated themselves in illegal activities. And here, people who have guns don’t care if you have one because they’re going to kill you first. We have to make guns illegal, and drastically increase the penalties for possession of them. By the way I am opposed to your views on mandatory minimums – they suck.

The argument for the ability to protect your family is one that I can’t say I feel differently than you about. However, having guns in the home is a very dangerous proposition. A study of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities shows that for every time a gun was used justifiably for self-defense, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides and eleven attempted or successful suicides. Guns anywhere are just a bad idea.

That said, and taking into consideration America’s affinity for weapons we have to create realistic solutions. Ray, you offer great ones in terms of higher prison sentences and making bullets cost-prohibitive. There is an idea that every bullet can be tracked so we know exactly who bought it and used it. Just as guns are useless without people, they are also useless without bullets. If there is tighter control and we can assure people can’t get them illegally, we will be a lot closer to solving the problem. In his book Audacity of Hope, Barack Obama mentions this (he better win!).

There does need to be a stronger and more effective registration law to update the Brady Bill which only covers dealers licensed by the Treasury Dept. States with shall issue gun laws are the least restrictive, allowing those who meet minimal requirements (background checks, residency, and age, sometimes a safety class) to purchase guns without restrictions. Also, the types of automatic weapons that are available for purchase are ridiculous.

For me, it comes down to this: We are a nation of laws. I think the powerful gun lobby and those with like-minds have seriously misunderstood the spirit and the letter of the Second Amendment. If we’re going to have guns in this nation, let’s do it the right way, the safe way, and the legal way. Second, criminals can take guns everywhere. I really won’t feel safe if good-intentioned, law abiding citizens are carrying them as well because accidents will happen. You want to see innocent people shot, then let people carry guns freely.

My favorite TV show is The West Wing. At the end of season one, the president was shot after speaking at a town hall meeting. This is what Press Secretary CJ Cregg said following that incident, and I think it bears importance in this discussion:

“There were 36 homicides last night, 480 sexual assaults, 3,685 aggravated assaults, all at gun point. And if anyone thinks those crimes could have been prevented if the victims themselves had been carrying guns, I only remind you that the President of the United States was shot last night while surrounded by the best-trained armed guards in the history of the world.”

Lastly, Ray you refer to your future “adorable children.” I don’t know how many of our readers know you, but for your children to be anywhere near normal looking, you had better marry Halle Berry.