Rather than jump right into the Peanut Butter Manifesto comment-frenzy, I decided to let it simmer for a bit while doing some serious NFL channel-surfing. So what's the deal other than the shrouded motives of Yahoo senior V.P. Brad Garlinghouse, who thinks the company is spreading its resources too thin? If you go way up the strategic food chain, it may suggest the idea of trying to be all things to all people is fundamentally flawed. Yahoo, for example, has acquired everything from Flickr and del.ico.us to blo.gs and Musicmatch. The question is where there is a common theme behind Yahoo's M&A activity other than the need to buy cool technology/services and smart people? For that matter, does any of the major players' acquisition plan make complete sense? What many companies seem to be forgetting is their core purpose. In other words, what are they are offering and is that offering clear to potential and existing customers? What is Yahoo's meaning in life other than attracting as many people as possible and making money from them. If that's the strategic premise, the acquisition of Overture makes complete sense. As for anything else, that's open for debate. Perhaps the biggest concern from Garlinghouse's rant, P.R. exercise, power move, etc. is the M&A dreams may be coming to end an abrupt end for all those Internet start-ups who were banking on being acquired as a way to escape the reality a flawed or non-existent business plan, and/or a dwindling bank account. For an interesting look at acquisitions made by Yahoo, Google and Microsoft, check out this chart compiled by Shmula.com. Some other measured takes on the PBM come from Rob Hyndman, who believes it hints at senior management changes within Yahoo, and Mathew Ingram, who post titles - This peanut butter is del.ici.us - is among the most creative I've seen in a long time. Tags: Yahoo, Brad Garlinghouse, M&A, peanut butter

Imagine the freedom of being able to blog for a living. You get to sit at home in your pyjamas, thinking big thoughts, pounding out  brilliantly-crafted posts while advertisers barrage you with offers and PR firms try to woo you. There are definite exceptions to the rule (Mike Arrington, Om Malik, Andrew Sullivan) but for the vast majority of us digital hacks, it's a pipedream. The Economist sheds some light on the "go blog, go pro"  phenomena with a short article that leads off with Dooce, who quit her job as a Web designer to blog full-time. At the very least, the story puts the spotlight on why people blog. I'm sure for many people, money is a motivator given the blogosphere is starting to emerge as a solid alternative for advertisers. But blog-vertising is a recent phenomena and the chances of hitting the blog jackspot as an indepedent blogger are few and far between. For most people, the raison d'etre behind blogging falls into two camps: branding and the desire to communicate/write/share ideas. This is what has made blogging so fascinating - the idea that people are doing something with little or no expectations of being compensated for their toil and trouble. It's downright weird and non-capitalistic. Next thing you, we'll all be volunteering hours a week and doing random act of kindness without thinking! At its best, blogging is about passion and enthusiasm. The best bloggers are those willing to offer new ideas, share their experiences and take positions - which has little to do with making money. This may sound like a strange statement coming from a blog networking executive (it still seems a little strange to say that!) but blogs work when the writers are engaged, excited and focused. If that attracts readers and - if you're lucky - advertisers, that's awesome. For more, check out Steve Rubel and Andy Beal, who has made blogging a big part of his consulting gig. As well, Rafat Ali has a post on a Guardian report that the BBC will start to pay for user-generated content.