Putting all your eggs in one basket is never a good idea…

Those who know even anything about basic investing understand that you “don’t put all your eggs in one basket.”  Translated, it’s probably not a good idea to purchase a single security (e.g. stock, bond, ETF, etc.) on the hope that single investment will “blow up” and make you rich.  On the contrary, making such bets in money management generally go the other direction and wind up in a loss.  Stated another way, putting all your eggs in one basket is never a good idea.  So why is it that in technology, senior managers seem to make the same mistake (and continue to keep their jobs)? 

Case in point:  If you are Netflix subscriber—and I am—chances are you may had problems streaming movies via the Internet on Christmas.  Why?  Because some I.T. executive decided it was a good idea to have ~95% of their services delivered through the cloud service, Amazon Web Services (AWS).  TheWall St. Journal reports that this was because the cloud services for Netflix are out of a single data center.   Say what???  To be fair, Netflix was not the only AWS client that was affected.  Amazingly though, Amazon’s competing web streaming service was not affected during the same period.  Coincidence?  You be the judge.

 Now far be it from me to suggest that AWS would sabotage a competitor.   That never happens in the cut-throat world of I.T. with slim profit margins and where service snafus affect market share.   And I would never suggest that contracting delivery of an overwhelming percentage of your services through a single vendor—never mind a direct competitor—would fall into the “bonehead move” category.  More important folks have been fired for less.   But given the flak Netflix received earlier in the year—recall: splitting the DVD mail service (Qwikster) from the streaming service—one would think that this is not the type of mismanagement publicity it would want.  

Part of the balance of minimizing risk is diversifying your portfolio—or in the case of I.T., planning for the inevitable and certainly not having effectively all of your services delivered through a competitor.  All that said, I like Netflix’ current delivery model, but I’m bracing for what happens when competitors with deeper pockets decide to step in.  Say, Google (or some other tech company sitting on a cash hoard) buying Blockbuster and begins streaming in earnest at a more competitive price point.  Apple already streams films via iTunes, but it hasn’t quite penetrated the way Netflix has.  Netflix has an app on effectively every “Smart” TV on the market, streaming device (e.g., Roku), and  on Apple’s own Apple TV product.  

Rumors of Apple’s entry into the smart TV market continue to swirl, so it’s just a matter of time before Netflix becomes the next Sony—a technology giant that becomes an also-ran overnight.  Anybody remember Betamax or the Walkman™?  Both have gone the way of the do-do bird thanks to DVD and the Apple iPod family, respectively.  Sony has effectively fallen and can’t get up as its proprietary technology was not supported by the music or movie industries and it now innovates in nothing.  As long as Netflix depends substantially upon its competitor, it’s only a matter of time before it becomes a dinosaur as well.

Enjoy Netflix while you can still get it, streaming fans.  Something better should be just around the proverbial corner.

 ‘Nough said,                                                                             

+THINKER

What good for the goose is good for the gander, but not if you're a consumer!

If you've ever been to Las Vegas, you've probably seen the famous "Welcome" sign and the myriad of cathedral hotels that line Las Vegas Blvd. I had the opportunity to ride down Las Vegas Blvd as part of the Viva Bike Vegas Gran Fondo, and it was truly a sight to behold from the vantage point of bicycle at oh-dark-thirty in the morning.  The lights were fabulous and Las Vegas' finest were on hand to block traffic for the 3,000 plus riders cruising down the boulevard.  I was reminded of the monorail that serves to reduce traffic in the area when I read an article in the Review-Journal, the local paper here, this morning.

According to the paper, the non-profit that runs the monorail had 757 million dollars in debt reduced to 13 million!  Poof! $744M gone into the desert air!  Oh, and by the way, now that the debt is more "manageable," they want to expand???  Really???   It got me to thinking: Why is it when a business--non-profit or otherwise--is in substantial debt, that debt normally can be forgiven without much fanfare, but when consumers face similar issues (albeit, at substantially lower amounts) we hear of arguments of personal responsibility followed (in some cases) by unreasonable foreclosure proceedings? 

Now I'm not suggesting that people ought not be responsible for the debts they accumulate.  Quite the contrary.  What I am suggesting is that if personal, fiscal responsibility is the expectation for consumers (and it should be), then it damn well ought to be the modus operandi for businesses as well.  The reality is that the money does NOT just disappear.  Sure, it gets "written off" the books in accounting doublespeak, but that money is recouped in creative ways that typically sock it to the consumer.  Case in point, it's not just by chance that bank fees are rising by as much as 25%.  According to a Forbes report, "Only 45% of banks offer free checking in Bankrate’s 2011 Checking Account Survey, and that number is likely to drop. At credit unions, the number is higher with 72% offering free checking but that’s down 4% from from last year’s study."

The basic tenet of "Make more" or "Spend Less" still applies--and businesses have no issue pushing the envelope on the former.  To be clear, I'm not anti-business--that would be silly on any number of levels--but there's something that needs to be said when there is clear gouging due to lack of competition (at best) or collusion (at worst).  And while I consider myself fiscally conservative, there is need--in my humble opinion--for regulation to reduce how easily corporate debt can be "forgiven."  Everyone wants the spoils when calculated risks are taken and work out wonderfully, but no one wants to pay the piper when the risks fall through. Responsibility is (and should be) for everyone, and not for the privileged few. 

Like/Re-post/Share as appropriate.


Peace,
+THINKER

After 20+ years working in the Tech Industry, I’m a believer…[not what you think]

I love German sports/GT cars and classic lines of American muscle cars.  Many do.  In particular, the Porsche 911 remains timeless and continues to be iteratively refined through the years.  Few cars handle the way a Porsche 911 does, and that’s why they’re priced accordingly.  It wasn’t always that way though.    Porsche has made periodic overhauls of chassis, engine, suspensions, etc., but you won’t see major changes in the basic shape of the 911.  Why?  Because you don’t mess with a classic!  You don’t mess with what people are passionate about.  And you don’t mess with what is (and continues to be) a golden goose.  Sadly, few I can only think of one American auto manufacturer that has followed this philosophy--albeit to a lesser degree of perfection.  What company?  Ford.

I love what Ford has done with the Mustang—GT, Boss, & Shelby.  Revived classic style, power output in both V-6 and a multitude of V-8 versions, and even a track weapon in form of the Boss all highlight the comeback in popularity of the ‘Stang.  But does anyone actually remember the Ford Probe?  Those of you that do are likely trying to forget it.  That car that was supposed to replace the Mustang back in 1989.  Briefly, the Probe was a complete overhaul of what Ford marketing people thought a Pony car should be.  It wasn’t rear wheel drive.  It wasn’t powerful.  And as cars go, it wasn’t even sexy to look at.  In fact, when Mustang fans got wind of Ford’s intent to replace the Mustang with the Probe, they raised such a stink that Ford had to capitulate.  It was too late to pull the plug on the Probe, and it went on to be one of Ford’s worst selling cars of all time.  Ford tried (unsuccessfully) to mess with a classic. 

In fairness, Ford is getting lots of things right these days.  In addition to the Mustang, the Focus, Explorer, and Escape are all good looking vehicles that offer great consumer value.  Still, someone in Ford’s marketing team has convinced their executive team that consumers want Microsoft Sync as a “feature” in their cars.  Huh?  As entertainment in a vehicle goes, having to learn how to speak to car does not fall into a category I would call, “entertaining.”  I see this more as Microsoft’s way of telling us how stupid we all are.  Because for years, Microsoft time and again has expressed that they know better than the rest of us how things should work.  Somehow speaking into your dashboard is a more “intelligent” way to increase the volume than simply rotating a rheostat knob clockwise, right?    And just contemplate the humor in getting the blue screen of death the next time you change your radio station.  And how’s that Zune player doing against the Apple iPod?  But I digress…

Kidding aside, this is the same Microsoft that will be desperately trying to convince people to buy Windows 8 soon {*Note to self:  Sell Microsoft stock now.}.  Let’s briefly go down memory lane of the operating systems that superseded Microsoft DOS, shall we?

      ·         Windows 1.0
      ·         Windows 2.0 
      ·         Windows 3.0/3.1
      ·         Windows for Workgroups 3.11
      ·         Windows NT/NT 3.5/NT 4.0
      ·         Windows 95/98/Me
      ·         Windows 2000
      ·         Windows XP
      ·         Windows Vista/7 

Since Microsoft’s release of Windows NT in 1995, consumers have been duped into successively buying/upgrading without getting the refinement that should come with an operating system that is essentially seventeen years old.  Sure, Windows outlasted IBM’s OS/2 and all the admittedly geeky permutations of Linux that consumers were never going to snuggle up to en masse, but it’s my contention that this “old dog” of an operating system no longer has any new tricks it can learn.  With each iteration, Windows was supposed to get better.  So the question you have to ask yourself is, “Are you better off now with Windows than you were four years ago?"  Has Windows gotten better?  The 911 sure has.  The Mustang?  Even with its live rear axle, without question it has.  Windows?  It’s Marginal. 

With Windows Vista/7, consumers finally received more control over security features.  Is it faster?  Not to the degree that it’s distinguishable for what most consumers use it for.  Is it at least better looking?  I suppose if you like the Aero zoom effect that originally came with Vista, yes, but that blatant rip-off from the Mac OS has been around for years.  Fast forward to 2009 when Windows XP rolled off the assembly line, and compared to Windows 7, the latter did not bring anything substantially new to the table.   Now here comes Microsoft again, looking to sell the public more “lipstick on a pig” with Windows 8.  Windows 8 is geared toward tablets and touch screens.  Is it too little too late?

Windows 8 represents a major change to the user interface that will likely add to overhead load on existing hardware.   For a detailed preview, click here.  With Windows 8, Microsoft is suggesting that they were wrong, and that the makers of the iOS and droid interfaces were right.  Instead of innovating, Microsoft is (in military terms) “bringing up the rear.”  There are no killer features being introduced with this latest Windows iteration.  No sonar backup avoidance.  No self-parking feature.  No massaging leather luxury seats with cooling fans.  There IS a feature that allows you to boot to a different OS.  The software developer in me says, “It’s about damn time!” but the consumer in me says, “Why the hell would I ever want to do that?”  You don’t see Ford instrument panels asking you if you’d like to see the Chevy or Chrysler instrument cluster superimposed on your dashboard, do you? 

So what’s a consumer to do?  To upgrade or not upgrade?  That is the question.   When friends and family ask me, I tell them with conviction, “My next computer will be an Apple.  No question.”  I’ve been convinced over the years that you really do get what you pay for as it applies to Apple devices.  Here's why: 

 My family is home to six iPod devices—including iPod G3/G4, Nano, Shuffle, and Touch—an Apple TV device, two iPads, and an “ancient” PowerPC G4.  The latter is a laptop device that’s over 10 years old that my younger son still uses for homework.  Other than a memory chip upgrade a few years back, it’s original.  It's bulletproof and still runs like a top--applications run fast enough for him and provides fast Internet access.  The OS upgrades itself without nagging me, and without affecting performance.  Why does that Redmond company find this so hard?  The excellence doesn't end with computing hardare.  Consumer devices from Cupertino (Apple HQ) are equally impressive.

After being notified of an issue with the battery in my old, first generation nano (that incidentally had a cracked screen, but still worked), Apple shipped me a brand new one.  For free.   The Apple TV device streams videos from Netflix and is capable of accessing pictures, music, and video rentals/purchases from my laptop.  The iPads also stream video direct to the AppleTV device with (literally) the touch of a single button.  Best of all, Apple has commoditized software (via the iTunes Store) that used to cost me hundreds of dollars each, and I get to install and run it on multiple devices at no extra cost.  Take that, Microsoft!  I’m totally impressed with the Apple eco-system, and I understand why consumers who purchase their products are so passionate about these devices.  That loyalty stems from the fact that Apple takes care of its customers.  Period.

Now all this having been said, I’m no Apple zealot and I’m not going to advocate that you camp out for the next iThing iteration. And I concede that Microsoft products still have a rightfully earned position in the enterprise, but I have to tip my cap to the folks at Apple.  They get it.  Are Apple devices more expensive?  Absolutely. But you get more than just the product.  When you buy Apple, you’re buying into the tangibles, too:  interoperability, ease of use, durability, and elegant design.  Do you get what you pay for?  With Apple, I'd say you get that and then some.

'Nough Said,

+THINKR

Cause An Effect...

Please support the 100 Black Men of Sacramento "Real Men Read" program by voting via the link below. State Farm is granting $25k to the top 40 education programs so we need you to vote, vote, and vote some more!--You can vote up to 10X per day quickly and we encourage you to please do so. Many Thanks for your support!!!

http://www.facebook.com/statefarm/app_376288832400015?app_data=Real-Men-Read-CA

Voters:

Please be advised that voting must be accomplished online--it CANNOT be accomplished via mobile phone. 

 The value in helping kids read effectively cannot be overstated.

Thanks, again, for your support in helping us make a difference!

Peace,

+THINKR

Your privacy is under seige...and YOU are the culprit!

I continue to be amazed by the transparency of some of the things people post and what they allow to be posted on their behalf by facebook apps. I'm perplexed not because I have things to hide or because I'm reading (or viewing video) things that are off color, I just don't see the value in broadcasting every article I read or every video I watch. In fact, I find this default behavior, a function of the facebook application programming interface (API), to be pretty creepy.  But apparently, this is in line with what Mark Zuckerberg, facebook's CEO, wants.  Despite his slightly narcassitic tendencies, you won't see any posts "on behalf of Mark" on his facebook page.  That's telling, isn't it?

 

There's a reason the founders of this country were incensed in their development of the constitution. Yet, here we are exercising free speech and effectively creating the vehicle for George Orwell's 1984. So what's the point? 

•  Be aware of your privacy settings in facebook (or other social networking site) and the apps you subscribe to. Confusing though they may sometimes be, you've got some flexibility in how visible your posts are. I'd be wary of apps (e.g., games, news readers, video) that want carte blanche--e.g., posting on your behalf and access to too much of your personal informatoin. If you must use such an app from within facebook, consider going into your settings to alter the post privilege and what the app has regular access to.
•  Be advised that while you still have free speech, you could also be held accountable--via subpoena or otherwise--for what you post. Despite all those settings (mentioned earlier), none of what you do here is truly private. And to some extent, that's the point in re-connecting with family and friends. Just be conscious of your data going where you THINK it's going. There's pending legislation in various states regarding making employer requests for your facebook password illegal, but the jury is still out on that one.
•  Be discerning. I'm no prude, but there are plenty of posts that just make me think, "Did we really need to know that?" I'm just sayin'(!)

*This has been a public service announcement from your friendly neighborhood Information Security Manager.

 

Peace,

+THINKR

I’m disappointed in my country today...

I love my country, but I’m disappointed.

I’m disappointed in my country today.

In 2008, the people of the United States of America elected
its first President of African-American descent, and since then the office of
the President has been under siege under the guise of “principle disagreement.”

• Was it principle disagreement that caused Congressman Joe Wilson to call out, “You lie!!!” in the middle of a health care speech by President Barack Obama?
• Was it principle disagreement that caused Senator Jim Sensabrenner to openly discuss the posterior size of the first lady?
• Was it principle disagreement to have created a bumper sticker that says, “Don’t Re-Nig In 2012”? Paula Smith, the purveyor of said bumper stickers, says that the slogan isn’t racist. Really???

I’m disappointed in my country today.

I don’t believe any of these things would have taken place had the President been Caucasian, but that’s not why I’m disappointed in my country today. It’s not like people in America haven’t disagreed on heady topics for decades—abortion, affirmative action, health care, and gay rights have long been topics that have been split along cultural, demographic, and party lines. Somehow, though, Americans have managed to plod along and evolve views over time.

But race…race continues to be THE topic among all others that continues to be the most incendiary. Comedian Chris Rock said it best in stating, “I love Black people, but I hate N----s!” If you haven't heard Chris’ emphatic rant, it's a must see. In fact, it still makes me laugh today, and then I realize how sad it is that so much of what he said in 1996 is still true.

The real trouble, as I see it, is that there continues to be a segment of our society—Black AND White—that see all Black people as N----s regardless of how educated African Americans become, regardless of how much in taxes African Americans pay, regardless of how many people African Americans help and employ, and regardless of how many contributions to society African Americans make. But even that is not why I’m disappointed in my country today.

I’m not disappointed because of our inability to legislate morality. I understand and accept that, because the boundaries of morality are filled with discourse. No, I’m disappointed today because despite all of the progress and sacrifice of those that have come before us, we—the collective
“we”—haven’t managed to eradicate ignorance, stupidity, and bigotry. Sure, we've put a dent in it, but this country still has major body work to do to get to that societal concours de' elegance.

“Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.” – Nelson Mandela

I’m disappointed because in 2012, a young man who happens to be African American was shot in a state with an inane “Stand Your Ground” law, and all anyone can talk about is how blacks are perceived in a hoodie. Last I checked, the “hoodie” was a noun that effectively described 80% of Bill Belichick’s wardrobe during the NFL season.

I’m disappointed because the loss of Trayvon Martin has become a referendum on an article of clothing that 99% colleges sell in college bookstores across America, and amazingly no one fears a college student in a hoodie.

I’m disappointed because Conservative talk radio hosts continue their hate speech and insist that had the shooter also been African American, the same “consideration” would be given and the shooter would not be arrested while the investigation commenced. Really???

I’m disappointed in--No, outraged by the fact that--my country that has a police force that didn’t think enough to contact the parents of a young boy shot in their community who had a cell phone. A cell phone! Let's see: Phone Menu --> Contacts --> Mom (or Dad or Home). That (and some common sense) should have taken all of five minutes to contact the victim's parents, NOT three days.

I’m disappointed in my country because there are those that continue to quibble that the accused shooter in the Trayvon Martin case is Hispanic, not White. Like that makes a difference? The boy is still dead and the shooter is free.

I’m disappointed in my country because in my heart I believe that had an African American man
a) Proclaimed himself the head of a community watch,
b) Disobeyed directions from police (on tape) to, “stop following the ‘suspicious’ youth,” and
c) Gunned down a young man (or girl) that was not African American…

The. Response. Would. Have. Been. Different. So, yes, race absolutely plays a part in the world view of how this tragedy is perceived.

I’m disappointed in my country because there are those who are naïve enough to believe that such a reverse scenario would not take place, when in fact, it already has.

Beyond the tragedy, which is bad enough, I’m disappointed in my country that has “Stand Your Ground” laws in 21 states, and fails to recognize the significance of the fact that the number of justifiable homicides has more than doubled in less than five years!

I’m disappointed in my country because I fear for the lives of my sons and yours. I’m disappointed in my country because I thought we—the collective “we”—had more sense and sensibility.

I love my country, but I’m disappointed.

I’m disappointed in my country today.

I pray that those of you who have sons, regardless of race, color, creed, nationality, sexual orientation, or religious belief, have healthy, well-educated young men. I pray our sons be treated with consideration and I pray that they grow to be men of integrity, men who respect differences, and men who live with dignity and honor. And most of all, I pray that our sons never come across the wrong individual in a “Stand Your Ground” state. Amen.

‘Nough Said,
+THINKER

Scams a plenty on the internet...let's be careful out there!

So I'm looking to replace the road bike I recently sold via Craig's list, and I came across a price that's simply too good to believe. That's when my Information Security antennae shot up and the five alarm sirens start ringing in my head. I'm an Information Security Manager for the company I work for, and consider this a public service announcement on how to recognize a fraudulent web site.

The site in question, Koala Bike Store (http://www.koalastoreonline.com), I can absolutely confirm is a scam. Here's some of my observations after arriving at too-good-to-be-true.calm:

Clue #1: The overall design of the site is pretty elementary. While every site hasn't adopted flash technology--that's the code that makes modern sites more interactive--this one has the feel of a circa '80s HTML page. The site makes a good attempt at appearing legit, though. Even allowing for home vs. shipping address and changing your password.
Clue #2: There are absolutely zero reviews on the products. Typically there are at least some reviews on sites with product inventory pages.
Clue #3: The site lists the wrong MSRPs on the bikes. This was only obvious as I'd researched specific models and knew the prices were too low.
Clue #4: ***The sale prices they list are simply TOO good to be true***
Clue #5: The domain was registered less than a month ago (2/1/2012)--Source: WhoIsMind.com
Clue #6: Google the physical address listed and you don't find a brick & mortar store. Instead, you find some cross street in a residential area of the UK.
Clue #7: Google the store name and almost all links point you back to the source web pages; no write ups on blogs, twitter, message boards, etc.
Clue #8: The international number listed goes unanswered--it's at times like these that I absolutely love having a Vonage line.
Clue #9: Consumers are often told to inspect the SSL cert on such sites. Unfortunately, doing so doesn't tell you much because the domain is associated with a valid digital certificate and traces back to a legitimate certificate authority (GoDaddy.com)--I'm just guessing Danica GoDaddy Patrick didn't sign up for this! The Koala site domain switches to https://www18.corecommerce.com/~koalabike to collect your data, and switches again to https://www.2checkout.com for the alleged checkout process. It turns out that both of those domains are legitimate, but neither has done any scrutiny on Koala.
Clue #10: On the minute chance that the site might actually be legit (not likely), I attempt to complete an order against my better judgment. Just consider the fact that I took one for the team! At checkout time, there's no fields to provide a credit/debit number (thank heaven), but I subsequently received an e-mail from the proprietor, "Charles Sikes," who states:

we are unable to process all credit cards due to the problem we are currently facing with our credit card processor, our credit card processor developed issues because of large volume of order we are having at the moment due to the ongoing promo we are currently running to all our new and existing customers.

Due to these issues, all customers do make their payments via (Western Union) for all orders below 10 units and Bank Transfer for orders Above 10 units.

Kindly reconfirm your full delivery address and get back to us in order to provide you the Company Western Union details

Charles was even kind enough to call me from a number with caller ID blocking. He had a heavy Eastern accent, spoke broken english, and had a dog barking in the background. You know...like every call center in America has. Charles wanted to let me know my package was being processed and assured me that everything would be okay....Uh huh...I should send my payment to someone via Western Union because you're not smart enough to use PayPal? No chance, Pal!Send Koala money and you'll never hear from them again. I guarantee it.

The moral here is to trust your instincts out there, learn from this, and listen to your momma told you, "if it looks/sounds/smells like it's too good to be true, it probably is!"

Epilogue
And for a fleeting moment, I thought I'd save a bunch on a great road bike! I guess I can take solitude in the fact that someone isn't spending my hard earned dollars in the UK!

'Nough Said.

Peace,
+THINKER

GOP Candidates Play In Stereotypical Sand

GOP Candidates Play In Stereotypical Sand
Sure, the GOP candidates are human, but these guys are the cream of the crop. Right? They are the Republican intellectual elite. The progressive thinkers. The ones who base their opinions on sound research and the (ahem) FACTS. Right? As it turns out, at least two of the GOP numb-skulls are quite content to continue play in the stereotypical sand. First, Rick Santorum, and now Newt Gingrich is at it. What better way to rile up conservative, white, Republicans than to extol the notion that minorities—particularly, African Americans—are sucking this country dry via government-sponsored social programs? Want evidence? Santorum was recently slammed by the NAACP for stating, “"I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money." Really, Rick? So tell us what’s really on your mind. Or better, yet, defend the Freudian slip that would have voters believe that people of African-American decent are the foremost recipients of public assistance.

Do African-Americans receive public assistance? Absolutely. What continues to astound me is that political talking heads never do the math: African-Americans are a minority. Let me repeat: minority. By definition, a minority is a smaller part making up less than half of the whole. African Americans make up just 12.7% of the U.S. population according to the census conducted in 2002. Let’s keep it simple: The report shows that through 2002, 12.1% of all people who reported as White and 23.9% of all people who reported as Black are below the poverty level. Hmmm. That must mean twice as many Blacks are below the poverty, and therefore twice as many are on welfare. Slow your roll. That same report calculates those poverty percentages within the confines of each ethnic group, but not as a percentage of all races. You have to do extra math to determine that. Fortunately, your friendly neighborhood African-American who is NOT on welfare has done those calculations for you.

In raw numbers, the 2002 census data shows 34.6 million Whites and 8.8 million Blacks below the poverty line. As a percentage of the 285.3 million total population, that comes to 12.1% and 0.3%, White and Black respectively. Last I checked, the ratio of White:Black below poverty is just over 4:1. Here’s the interesting part: GOP politicians continue to spew and perpetuate the notion that(only) Blacks are on welfare or that Blacks are the overwhelming majority on social assistance. Mind you, the 2002 report referenced does not directly address the numbers on public assistance. For actual data on individuals on welfare, searching on “welfare” via the census bureau site yields more dated results.

Case in point: The report entitled, A LOOK AT WELFARE DEPENDENCY USING THE 1984 SIPP (Survey of Income and Program Participation) PANEL FILE, was the only report that included welfare data mapped to demographic information. Suffice it to say, this report didn’t vary much from the 2002 data. Of the Characteristics of Welfare Recipients, 86.8% were White and 10.6% . Sure, one can reasonably extrapolate the percentages to have grown by 2002 and beyond, but to assume African Americans make up the majority of recipients on welfare is patently false. And frankly, aren't you tired of African American being seen as the poster children of public assistance when you know it's not true?

Elsewhere in the GOP candidate circus ring, Newt Gingrich’s hoof-in-mouth incubation period is evidenced by his assertion that he is, “prepared to go to (the NAACP) convention and talk about why the African American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps." Thanks, but, “No Thanks,” Newt. I will leave to your own reading the host of further idiotic quotes from the former speaker and 20-year veteran of the house. I’m astounded that in the age of the Internet, where one can invalidate false (and patently stupid) statements in less than twenty minutes, candidates are not held more accountable.

For those candidates and constituents who would complain that there isn’t enough focus on the issues, how about starting with backing off of the inflammatory speech to rile up voters? If you, “reserve the right to tell the truth,” Mr. Gingrich, you should damn well have your facts straight!

Not that it really matters. A considerable percentage of the GOP electorate takes every word they hear from the likes of Newt, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly and Michael Savage as gospel. An ignorant vote still counts as much as an informed one, I know, but is too much to ask to want an informed electorate? Or are we doomed to stall in political stalemate? Not that the Democrats don’t have their own talking heads. Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, and Steven Cobert favor liberal causes, but each of these gents is an equal opportunity basher of all politicians…and, I might add, they (at least) get the facts right most of the time!

‘Nough said,
+THINKR