The boobs who watch Comedy Central and MTV on Time Warner Cable (NYSE: TWC) will not have their viewing pleasure interrupted. Viacom (NYSE: VIA), the parent of the two content networks, has come to a financial deal with TWC to keep the programming on the air. Viacom wanted more money for having its shows on the cable system. It looks like it got that additional cash.

According to The Wall Street Journal, "Viacom had publicly threatened to pull its networks off Time Warner Cable's system on New Year's Eve in a bid to win higher payments from the cable giant in its negotiation over carriage fees."

Both parties can claim that they walked away with something good. Viacom gets more money for its programming. TWC keeps shows that are appealing to its paid subscribers. That means that what TIme Warner customers pay for the service over time will probably go up to offset the higher fees to Viacom, but not more than a dollar or two a month.

It is too bad that the programming was not taken down. People in front of their TVs, sitting in lounge chairs six or seven hours a day, might have been forced to get up and exercise or volunteer to help the poor. Instead they get the intellectual benefit of watching Beyonce and Britney Spears.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

Reports that Britney Spears was in a minor accident over the weekend with her Mercedes is another in a long line of mishaps for the pop star. Why this qualifies as news is beyond me, and it's my feeling that Britney should just be left alone. The media have succeeded in driving her into a virtual nervous breakdown, for what? To sell a few more papers, or attract a few more viewers. Should the media be in the business of ruining people?

According to the AP report: "Spears was in stop-and-go traffic when her car struck a 2006 Nissan in front of her that had stopped. The Nissan then pushed forward into another vehicle. No damage was noted to any of the vehicles."

The one winner in this latest Spears' episode may be Daimler AG (NYSE:DAI), maker of the famed Mercedes. As with most automakers the company has been struggling, and sales have been sagging. There is no question that they could use the free PR. After all, Britney drives the car, and it escaped the crash without a dent.

Despite recent troubles, investors looking for a contrarian play may want to take a look at Daimler. Their new strategy of trying to gain market share in Russia and in China to help offset US weakness, seems to be a smart move. With a growing upper middle class in both of these countries, the need to own a Mercedes will be strong, as it will be perceived as a status symbol.

Maybe the media can start focusing on global wealth creation, and leave Britney alone.

Aaron Katsman is the lead Portfolio Manager and Managing Director of America Israel Investment Associates, LLC. and Senior Editor of IsraelNewsletter.com. DISCLOSURE: Writer's fund has no position in any stock mentioned, as of 4/14/08.

The New York Times reports that despite a fortune ranging from $50 million to $125 million, the battle for mentally unstable Britney Spears's money is raging. She's a shrewd business person -- generating cash from royalties, concerts, clothing, perfume, corporate promotions and real estate.

But she's also spending a lot of that money. She takes in $720,000 a month but mainly from royalties, but earns "only" $13,000 a month from investments. Her spending includes $102,000 a month for entertainment, gifts and vacation and $16,000 for clothes. Yet court documents reveal that members of Britney's household have been paying for her medicine, food, and other day-to-day needs.

While Britney makes some money from her albums -- she received a $4 million advance on her latest Blackout -- the real money is in concerts and the clothing and other items sold there. Her five major tours have sold some $140 million in tickets but her take -- after deducting costs for arena rentals, equipment, crew and all those backup dancers -- is much smaller. The real money is made from the sale of T-shirts, key chains, dolls and other Britney-branded goods.

Renowned equity analyst Perez Hilton has apparently discovered the real reason investors sold off shares of Starbucks Corp. (NASDAQ: SBUX) today. No, it has nothing to do with the weak jobs report, as you may have been thinking.

Maybe its because Wall Street traders are worried about how Britney Spears' hospitalization will will effect sales. The former teen princess is nearly always seen with a latte in hand and, unless Starbucks delivers to the hospital, sales in the LA area could plummet!

But there may be a contrarian play on this news: Starbucks locations in the LA area are less likely to be overrun by Spears and her posse, driving away other customers, and efficiency and sales per square foot could soar!

And the company will have to pay lower insurance premiums because the risk of baristas being attacked with umbrellas is significantly lowered by Ms. Spears' hospitalization.

Today's biggest headline is that Britney Spears' 16-year-old sister, Jamie Lynn, is pregnant. This could have more of an impact on the markets than any Fed announcement! Kidding. But just when you thought Britney Spears might be in danger of losing her crown as America's leading advocate of white trash family values, Britney's baby sister swoops in and rescues her big sister, securing that crown on behalf of the entire Spears family. (Pamela Anderson is making a run for it by divorcing -- and now possibly reconciling with -- her third husband of only two months, Rick Solomon, who is best known for his role in the bestselling adult video "1 Night in Paris," which he made with then girlfriend Paris Hilton.) More importantly, this news offers a solid lesson for investors.

Seriously -- let me explain.

You see we've all cringed at Britney's circus-like behavior and thought that maybe, just maybe, her baby sister would be spared such embarrassments. But, like stocks in the same industry, children, especially those with the same DNA, raised in the same environment tend to possess the same qualities. The Spears' sisters both have (or had) the looks, incredible talent, an unholy desire for headlines of any kind and the ability to continually make poor decisions.

Let's compare these entertainment siblings to some popular stock siblings.

In a world with failing mortgages, terrorist attacks, the rise of the Chinese economy and greenhouse gases stewing inside the Earth's environment, it's comforting to hear that the top search term on global internet property Yahoo! Inc. (NASDAQ: YHOO) was -- wait for it -- Britney Spears.

From viewing the top-10 search terms from Yahoo!, one would think the brainless antics of every teenager on the planet was in control of every web browser in our world. While I'll reserve an opinion on Google, Inc.'s (NASDAQ: GOOG) top search terms, my impression on Yahoo!'s web search audience is now pretty clear. Oddly, though, the demographic that would be searching for such mind-numbing terms like these are precisely the target many advertisers are looking for. Yay (yawn).

Here are the top-ten, in order: Britney Spears, WWE, Paris Hilton, Naruto (a Japanese manga series), Beyonce, Lindsay Lohan, RuneScape (an online game), Fantasy Football, Fergie and Jessica Alba. Sounds like a who's who of teenage stars and media smut. Nice.

Why do so many millions (or billions) of web surfers care about a has-been teenage diva, or a has been party trash girl? Beats me. But, it does prove one thing -- the world's web surfers can be obsessed by goofy media types and mass-manufactured entertainment personalities. This is kewl while I LOL.

Contrary to reports published last week, Billboard has announced this morning that the Eagles' new album Long Road Out of Eden is the number one album in the Billboard 200, beating the Britney Spears "comeback" album. The announcement comes after a change in chart rules that "will now allow exclusive album titles that are only available through one retailer to appear on The Billboard 200 and other Billboard charts." According to the report, Nielsen Soundscan places the album at number one with 711,000 copies sold, primarily at Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE: WMT) stores. Spears' new album Blackout is charting at number two (it would have been number one) with 290,000 copies sold.

The change is also a product of the new methods that music is beginning to be distributed through in the market, with Billboard's chart director Geoff Mayfield noting "it was inevitable that Billboard's charts would ultimately widen the parameters to reflect changes that are unfolding in music distribution." Before this, exclusive albums like the Eagles album sold exclusively by one retailer were only eligible for the Top Comprehensive Albums chart, which primarily tracks catalog releases. The change also came about because Wal-Mart chose to report the data for the high sales of the album.

It may dismay Britney fans out there that defiantly defend her, but in the end it is a nice position for the Eagles to chart with their new album. More importantly, this kind of change by Billboard indicates that as the record industry shifts and changes with regard to digital releases and limited physical release availability (the Eagles' album is not the first and won't be the last exclusive title from any store), charting practices will stay on top of the game. Of course, the most surprisingly and perhaps best news to come out of this change is just the sheer number of copies sold at Wal-Mart stores for the album. Maybe the CD still has life in it yet, but it could also point to the generational gap that exists with music listeners and buyers in today's market.

Britney Spears is set to top the Billboard 200 and Top Comprehensive albums this week, despite potentially higher sales by the Eagles first album in 27 years: Long Road Out of Eden. Sales of Britney's Blackout sat at 124,000 copies yesterday according to Billboard and the album is expected to sale about 200,000 - 250,000 more before the end of the charting week. In 2003, Britney's In the Zone album sold over 600,000 copies in its debut week, which means with the projected figures, her album sales are still not as high as hoped. Unfortunately, that is a trend common for all album releases since 2003.

On the other side, the Eagles new album, which is being sold exclusively in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE: WMT) stores and on the band's official website, is reported to potentially outsell Blackout if Wal-Mart decides to report the sales. Even if Wal-Mart were to decide to report sales, the Eagles new album would only be eligible for the Top Comprehensive Albums chart. Billboard notes "titles that are not generally available at retail are not eligible to appear on The Billboard 200, but are entitled to chart on Billboard's Top Comprehensive Albums, which includes catalog titles and proprietary albums from retailers willing to report those sales."

It's a shame that the first new album in 27 years by the Eagles will potentially not become a "number one," but at the same time it is not surprising to read that the band is enjoying heavy sales of their album. In 1994, their live album Hell Freezes Over topped the Billboard 200 for two weeks. At the same time, you cannot blame the band for choosing to make an exclusive deal with Wal-Mart, especially given the chain's status as number one music retailer, and the history the company has with exclusive and limited album releases.

From the home office in Burlington County, New Jersey, I give you the top 10 reasons why the stock market is tanking yet again today.

Number 10: Britney Spears. The beleaguered pop diva's new album Blackout is getting positive reviews, surely a sign that the nation is going to hell in a hand basket. If that doesn't cause people to sell their stocks and hide their money in holes in their backyard, I don't know what will.

Number 9: Britney Spears again. For those readers over 21, I should note that the latest single from the bad decision maker is called "Gimme More," which is certainly apropos to the market. Yesterday, the Fed cut interest rates, and pundits reacted the way my two-year-old nephew reacted when he got candy last night at Halloween. Yup, he wanted more. But the question is whether candy man Ben Bernanke will continue to dole out sweet, cheap money to fill up investors' plastic pumpkin pails.

Number 8: The housing market. Try as I might, I couldn't find a way to blame Britney for this one. About the only real estate market that's doing well are sheriff's sales. Home foreclosures doubled in the third quarter. As more adjustable-rate mortgages reset to higher interest rates, more people are bound to lose their homes.

Number 7: ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM) and oil prices. Maybe it's karma or crack spreads but the world's largest oil company not only reported a decline in quarterly profit but its biggest decline in three years. Oil prices hit $96 per barrel today, and one economist predicted $120 oil next year.

It seems as though no one can resist the temptation of the Britney Spears-bashing bandwagon: not even the most-revered financial newspaper in the world. Attacks from the tabloids and the likes of Perez Hilton have been relentless for years, but The Wall Street Journal's review (subscription required) of her new album is fairly scathing. Here are some of the high (low?) points:

A phalanx of producers and backing vocalists exert more of an influence on a disc that's not quite a mess but only occasionally rises above a muddle... as a vocalist, Ms. Spears sounds weary, snide and at times disconnected. On some songs, her voice seems grafted to the material as if an afterthought... At the bottom register, her voice is a throaty bleat... With "Blackout," Ms. Spears fails to deliver a recording that will re-establish her as a dominant pop star rather than a 25-year-old woman who seems bent on self-destruction...

The Journal doesn't seem to have anything positive to say about Spears, and the good things it does say about the album refer mainly to the production and background vocalists.

But all of this raises an interesting question: why is The Wall Street Journal reviewing a Britney Spears album anyway? Is that really her demographic? With the exception of Alan Greenspan, how man Journal readers will even consider buying her new album?

But then again, the financial press has a well-deserved reputation for calling stock sells precisely at their bottoms. So perhaps Britney's career is ready to rebound.

At last! Evidence that it actually is possible to be such a hot mess that no one cares about you anymore! At least, according to Forbes' new list of the celebrities whose faces sell the most tabloids. Number 1 on the list this year was Jennifer Aniston, the former Friends star, whose also found success on the big-screen.

But Britney. Oh, poor little Britney Spears. According to Forbes:

The biggest disappointment at the newsstand? Yep, it's Britney Spears. Ironically, she landed 18 single covers during the six-month period, which also makes her the most popular cover-subject choice. With her face on the cover, glossies collectively sold some 600,000 issues below average, placing her last among cover subjects when it comes to sales. Also working against the former pop tart: an abnormally low appeal score of 3. In fact, the only celebrity faring worse was celebutante Paris Hilton, who scored a 2.

Apparently people just take for granted that Britney's personal life is a train wreck -- to say nothing of her career, whose current state was pretty much summed up by her possibly-drunken VMA performance. It's not even worth following anymore, because every new twist and turn is just unneeded confirmation of something we already know: Britney Spears is messed up.

Britney Spears, it turns out, won't be posing for Playboy -- she's reconsidering the idea with her rather imperfect post-baby body, and according to the National Ledger, she's now only worth $400,000 to Hugh Hefner. She won't take less than seven figures (note she was offered $2 million several years ago). Even with her clothes on, however, everyone's favorite has-been is still making cash over the barrelhead.

Nope, it won't go into her kids' college fund; she's not making the money. Time Warner Inc. (NYSE: TWX), News Corp. (NYSE: NWS), Yahoo! Inc. (NASDAQ: YHOO), and just about every company that covers the entertainment industry is making money just for the idea. It may have been a mistake for Vanessa Hudgens to let a nude photo of herself bounce around the internet, but it's hardly a blow to Walt Disney Co. (NYSE: DIS), for whom she stars in movie after movie after teen musical movie. In fact, she's the biggest search term on the internet today.

It's not about sex or nudity or retouched photos: it's about Googling for them. Your two- and three-word search phrases (even the misspelled ones) may not take you to NSFW web sites. But they're working overtime for the companies who serve up the content. If you're reading this post right now? You're making money for Time Warner, just looking at those ads. The amazing fact about media: sex sells, even when no one's having any.

For those of you who missed it, I envy you. After watching MTV's Video Music Awards last night, my friend summed it up well: "OMG, Britney sucked HXC!" That's pretty much all there is to be said. Britney looked out shape, bored, arguably intoxicated, and just... messy. If you haven't seen it yet, you can watch it here.

Given that Britney was the most exciting thing from this year's VMA's (not including Sarah Silverman's skewering of the former pop princess), I can only imagine what the Nielsen chart for the awards looked like. High ratings when Britney began her performance followed by a sharp drop-off as people with children and stomachs changed the channel, and then an Enron-like descent after she was done.

This may be a blessing, though, for Viacom Inc. (NYSE: VIA), parent of MTV, because people finally are talking about the VMAs which lost thier relevance sometime during the Clinton Administration.

But the nice thing about watching Britney self-destruct is that she's not a major talent. It's not like Billie Holiday, or even Amy Winehouse, where we can watch the dysfunctional descent and say: "What a shame. So much talent and she's throwing it all away". No. With Britney, all we can do is laugh, and maybe feel a little bit sorry for her children... and any other children who happened to be watching.

It's hard to imagine why Britney even bothered: She was stumbling around on stage and barely danced at all. Did she really think the headlines would be anything other than what they were? Here's a sampling:

Spears bombs...

Spears' MTV comeback a big letdown

Spears disappoints in MTV comeback.

Britney Spears disaster: a dead career bounce

And of course Perez Hilton, who put it this way:

So it may finally be time to declare Britney's career completely over. I would say Novastar Financial (NYSE: NFI) is a better bet here.

With March Madness on the books and the World Series a long way away, the world's gamblers need another race to follow. With Prince William newly single, the odds-makers are placing stakes on who England's most eligible bachelor might be courting next.

On the list, with fairly generous odds of 20-1, is reportedly rehabilitated pop starlet Britney Spears, who was rumored to have engaged in email flirtation with Prince William five years ago. Other potential suitors for William (and therefore possible heirs to the throne of England -- how frightening) include Paris Hilton, with 14-1 odds (!), and Heather Mills (formerly Heather Mills McCartney), who has proven talented at earning the love of beloved Englishmen and then dragging their names and fortunes through the muck.

I'm not a gambling woman by nature, but I must say these odds are not ones I'd take. I just can't conceive of the chances being all that good for a Britney/William union (or a Paris/William match-up, for that matter). By means of comparison, bookmakers have set odds of 30 to 1 on the Cincinnati Reds winning the World Series (300 to 1 for the Washington Nationals), and there are certainly fewer teams in Major League Baseball than there are eligible young women interested in Prince William's hand.

Beth Gaston Moon is an analyst at Schaeffer's Investment Research.

This post is part of our Battle of the Brands feature. Let us know which brand you prefer, and watch out for more Battle of the Brands posts.

Some people drink Pepsi, some people drink Coke,
The wacky morning DJ says democracy's a joke.
-- Cake, Comfort Eagle

Unless you are a rare RC Cola drinker, your carbonated beverage decision in the supermarket comes down to the two heavyweights: the flagship products from the Coca-Cola Company (NYSE: KO) and PepsiCo Inc (NYSE: PEP). But the battle between these brands spans much further than the supermarket shelves. From which brand restaurants stock, to what countries each operates in, this rivalry is all-encompassing and global. But instead of a list of countries or restaurant chains, lets take a deeper look at the actual products.

Cola and Beyond

We don't have space to list, nor would you have time to read, every different variant of Coca-Cola and Pepsi, which would force me to include failed ideas such as Crystal Pepsi. Suffice it to say, you won't find many original ideas here, and when a successful idea comes from either company, an imitator just as quickly appears from the other. Coke/Pepsi, Diet Coke/Diet Pepsi, Cherry Coke/Wild Cherry Pepsi, Coke with Lime/Pepsi Lime, Coke Zero/Pepsi One, Coca-Cola Blak/Pepsi Cappuccino. Had enough yet? Because that was just a list of comparable colas. Both companies also make lemon-lime sodas, orange sodas, and other similar carbonated and noncarbonated beverages. So then what differentiates them? Certainly not their product arsenal, but taste and marketing.