About Me

Name: Alexander Koby
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Blog Roll

 

kReport: Don't Bail Out the Beurocrats

Posted by Alexander Koby on Monday, September 22, 2008 11:00:00 AM
I awoke this morning to the chatter of a few forgotten articles, that had been gathering dust, being circulated around as I scanned my usual coffee break haunts. Today's hot topic: What Congress intends to do over the coming weeks in order to cope with the financial collapse of Fannie Mae & Freddy Mac, two of America's largest mortgage lenders for home buyers.

What surprises me most about this quagmire, is that most of our working professionals in Washington and on Wall Street, whose opinions we value so dearly, insist on claiming that the breakdown of the housing market was essentially unforeseeable. We're hearing on a daily basis that this financial crisis is being called the "U.S.'s worst since the Great Depression." However today, it is not as though we are working with the limited technology of 1929. Even then anyone with half a brain could told you that money that doesn't exist is money that can't be collected. Yet, we continue to solely blame the banks rather than sharing the burden of responsibility amongst the unqualified loan applicants as well. Instead, foreclosures are refereed to as "woeful victims" of a shaky economy.

We have had warnings since 1988, 20 years ago, forecasting the risks of lending to those whom cannot afford to repay the loans in the first place. An article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, 1988, community activists sought out banks to invest in blighted areas but were rejected. "We held up those lobbies for hours exchanging pennies for dollars and back again," said one community activist. "Later that afternoon we were met by the board who approved $4 million in loans." Simply so that the "community activists" would go away and the bank could continue operations.

March 14, 1992 NY Times, the article "Fading Red Line; A special report; New Hope in Inner Cities: Banks Offering Mortgages." The first paragraphs, "In blighted North Philadelphia, the banking industry is meeting the inner city. Prodded by Federal laws and an aggressive community-action group called Acorn, banks here and in other cities across the country have started making mortgage loans in neighborhoods they have traditionally avoided. So far, $60 million has been lent in a widely watched program. It matters little if an applicant has a small income, an irregular job pattern or collects welfare or food stamps." Acorn, one of Obama's preferred pet projects.

Another NY Times article, "Don't Let Banks Turn Their Backs on the Poor," December 4, 2004, which reads,"Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act in 1977 as a response to the practice of redlining -- the refusal by banks to extend loans or banking services in poor, urban areas and distressed rural communities. Under the act, regulators consider reinvestment performance when a bank seeks permission to expand or merge. Since its inception, the law has prompted banks to channel more than $1 trillion into reinvestment projects -- without requiring a single dollar of Congressional spending ... Now (2004), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), one of four agencies responsible for enforcing the act, is proposing to relax enforcement of the law at almost 1,000 banks. The Federal Office of Thrift Supervision, another overseer of the law, has already finalized a similar proposal for savings and loans institutions. These new rules may be the first step in an effort -- long pursued by some in Congress -- to dismantle the act, piece by piece ... And communities will suffer if enforcement is curtailed, because the act has been working. A Treasury report presented in 2000 to the Congress concludes that mortgage lending to low- and moderate-income borrowers and areas rose substantially in the 1990's." It can be interpreted from these statements by the NY Times that additional cutbacks on regulations will encourage lenders to write loans to unbefitting (poor) borrowers at an exponential rate in the years to come.

Instead, Nancy Peloci just last week made the bold statement that, "Democrats hold no culpability for what is occurring in the current financial markets." Did we forget that the Democrats have had control of Congress for the past 2 years? Congress: the law making body of the federal government. And what have they done to avoid this turmoil -- nothing. Americans don't care that July 2007 was made National Watermelon month or who the newest post office is named after. The Democratic revolution of 2006 was brought around by "change," and all we got were more tax burdens. Even John McCain, who had been muttering and puttering around Capitol Hill with Senate Bill 190: "Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act" in 2005 was complaining about financial turmoil and warned about this scenario. But I guess no one was listening there either. Party line votes were more important.

The Bush Administration feels it has found the perfect solution to repair the crumbling housing market: A $700 billion purchase of devalued mortgage loans from overextended lenders. Basically, a reimbursement for unqualified home buyers who cosigned with an I.O.U.

Perusing one Bloomberg article in particular, "Dodd Proposes Giving U.S. Equity Stake for Bad Debt (Septet. 22, 2008)," today, I found myself agreeing with Senator Chris Dodd; odd since this is something that has never happened before. I had to pinch myself repeatedly when I reached a period, just to ensure I wasn't dreaming. Dodd's measure to create a 5-member oversight panel sounded pretty good, however by the third paragraph I remembered why I dislike him so.

Dodd's proposed oversight structure would seek to "limit the compensation of executives at the companies benefiting from the rescue and provide mortgage relief for struggling borrowers." Granted this sounds legitimate, but it is government tampering in the affairs of a private business and reminds me of Sen. Clinton insisting that we [the government] need to seize profits from oil companies. Over time, this plan would bleed over into every corner of the private sector.

When experiencing the result of your own foolish actions, this administration's policy is registering that the federal government will always be there to hold your hand and wipe your tears when times are rough.

Whereas, if you worked all your life for Enron, Adelphia or Global Crossing; investing in your retirement account and lost everything in their accounting scandals -- the federal government can't be bothered to save your nest-egg.

Double standards galore.

"Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has urged Congress to pass (bailout) legislation without delay and without linking it to new programs." Jump to a direct quote from Section 8 of the "Treasury’s Financial-Bailout Proposal to Congress" legislation: "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency." A bit authoritarian and unconstitutional, yes? While speaking with ABC News, Paulson adds that, "We need this (the legislative process) to be clean and quick, and we need to get it in place."

Dodd is also proposing to "penalize" executives who take "inappropriate or excessive" risks. The executive compensation and severance packages could be reduced if that is "in the public interest," the proposal says. Further government tampering. Why should the government be making determinations as to the appropriateness of risks made by a private company? "Risk" is a given in the business world.

Dodd's proposal would also "force executives to give back profits they earned that were based on company accounting measures that are later found to be inaccurate." The Clinton administration’s White House Budget Director Franklin Raines ran Fannie and collected $50 million. Jamie Gurilli, Clinton Justice Department Official, worked for Fannie and took home $26 million. Will they be giving back their profits?

McCain made a valid point in saying that, "The senior executives of any firm that is bailed out by [the] Treasury should not be making more than the highest paid government official." The highest paid government official would be the President at $400,000. McCain's plan is to employ oversight over those who have declared bankruptcy, whereas Dodd's plan is to employ oversight over healthy companies. Unfortunately, even Republican Congressmen like John Campbell (CA) are in favor of Dodd's oversight board and executive-pay limitations. "I don't think we have a lot of choice," Campbell said. As a U.S. Representative, you can choose not to go along with a foolish plan Mr. Campbell.

Switching gears -- Senator Obama may talk a tough game when addressing issues concerning the markets, but according to the Center for Responsive Politics, this doesn't deny the fact that Obama received $12,349 in campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; second only to our Senate Banking Committee Chairman: Chris Dodd. On the same note, Obama put Fannie Mae’s CEO Jim Johnson in charge of his VP search committee, who also collected millions during his executive role. Obama has also selected Fannie’s former General Counsel as a senior advisor to his campaign.

Dodd caps his comments with, "We cannot just turn over $700 billion in taxpayer money and not insist that that taxpayer is going to be protected in this,'' Dodd told reporters yesterday.

No matter who's elected president in November, Democrats are poised to expand their congressional majority. And that means they will have a leading role in pushing through tough new regulation of U.S. financial markets. That would put the Democrats in the driver's seat next year, as the U.S. carries out the biggest expansion of federal power over the financial system since the Great Depression. For instance, ensuring the employment of lawmakers such as House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (MA), who last week proposed the creation of a new federal agency to buy bad debt from private institutions.

So answer me this, do Dodd and Frank understand where this magical piggy bank of $700 billion in bailout funds are coming from? Do you now understand why Obama and the other Democrats want to raise your taxes?

They are counting on you to just play along even though you won't benefit a dime.

# # #

(alexander koby. kreport.org. 09.22.08)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Facebook Explains "McCain/Palin '08" Fan Page Removal

Posted by Alexander Koby on Saturday, September 20, 2008 2:41:00 PM

Friends,

(I'm starting to sound like Joe Lieberman)

When John McCain announced Sarah Palin as his running mate, I quickly created a "McCain/Palin '08" Group to begin gathering support for the ticket. Following Facebook's advice, it was suggested that I create a Fan Page as well, which would allow more options and features for users. So, I focused my efforts on promoting the "McCain/Palin '08" Fan Page instead.

As of Sept. 16, the "McCain/Palin '08" Fan Page, which had attracted over 200,000 supporters, was taken down by Facebook. No warning was given, no explanation was sent to its members; the Page simply disappeared. I received a notice informing me that I or the Page had violated one or more of these generic terms of use.

It read:

Warning - Please Read This!

You created a Page that has violated our Terms of Use, and this Page has been removed. Facebook Pages are special profiles used solely for commercial, political, or charitable purposes. Among other things, Pages that are hateful, threatening, or obscene are not allowed. We also take down Pages that attack an individual or group, or that are set up by an unauthorized individual. Continued misuse of Facebook's features could result in your account being disabled.
 
Being unsure of which generic guideline Facebook was referring to, I requesting a more specific answer clarifying the exact term they felt was broken. I received a reply from Facebook stating, in summary, that I (Alexander Koby) am not an "authorized representative" of the individual or group being promoted and thereby had violated Facebook's terms of use.
 
The entire E-mail reads:
Hi Alexander,

Per our Terms of Use, Facebook Pages may only be set up by an authorized representative of the entity or individual that is the subject of the Facebook Page. If a Page is created by an unauthorized individual, this Page may be removed. If an authorized representative requests it, the fans of an unofficial Page may be moved over to the official Page before it is removed. Because we respect the privacy of all users, I'm not able to give you any specific information about another user's removed Page. Please note, however, that the official, authorized Pages for John McCain and Sarah Palin are still available on the site.

Our view is that Facebook should not play the arbiter of any discussion that occurs through our site. We apply this view to any political discourse through any of our products, including Facebook Pages and Ads. By censoring certain messages while allowing others, we would risk damaging the very discussion that we designed our products to create. We will never remove a Page in order to censor the content or promote a differing opinion.

We do take down Pages that attack an individual or group or that promote or glorify violence, intolerance, racism or discrimination.

If you have any questions or concerns, you can visit the Terms Applicable to Facebook Pages at http://www.facebook.com/terms_pages.php.

Thanks for contacting Facebook,

Claire
Customer Operations
Facebook
The explanation keeps reverting back to threats and hate speech, none of which were endorsed or promoted by the Page. It was a "Fan Page," hence calling for support of something positive. On the other hand, we all know that people are going to make comments and start verbal fights; that's a given. It then falls to the administrator and community members alike to remove or report these unsavory postings, though some things are undoubtedly bound to slip through the cracks.

Considering the Page developed a substantial fan base, I would like to see it reactivated. However, since Facebook allows me no means of contacting either the John McCain or Sarah Palin Fan Page Admins directly to request authorization, I have made a few postings and replied to Facebook seeking further assistance instead.

Perhaps one of the McCain staffers will write me a permission slip.

Nevertheless, I am surprised at how hastily this Page was taken down, barely lasting 2 weeks. We have all seen highly obnoxious Groups on Facebook, and for as often as you may report them for being offensive, they are rarely taken down, if ever.

Case in point: A few years back, some coworkers created a Group mocking a silly comment another had made. It was all in good fun and no one was "offended" by it, not even the commenter who was a member. However, to the unsuspecting passerby, it could have been interpreted as hateful or cruel. As time passed, the group dwindled and a fickle third-part became the Admin. I left the group too, but for some reason, my name was in the description of this Group and every time you ran a search for me on Facebook, this Group popped up. Since the new Admin was unresponsive, it took me 2 years of reporting and letter writing before Facebook finally acted in taking the Group down. Hardly a consistent policy.

In the meantime, the "McCain/Palin '08" Group seems to violate no terms and has been left alone.

# # #

(a.k. 09.20.08)

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Blown Away by "Ike"

Posted by Alexander Koby on Saturday, September 13, 2008 2:00:00 PM
Being a Floridian for nearly 20 years, I have grown accustom to the over-dramatization of the local news each hurricane season. More specifically: The Weather Report. Our top story: "It could rain. Will it rain? Has it ever rained? It will be the worst inch of rain!" Thus becoming desensitized to the straight-faced talking heads as I shield myself in a cloud of ignorance as the "apocalypse" draws ever so near. Since my jaunt in Houston, I have continued this practice and the coverage of hurricane Ike was no exception. Nostalgia sets in as the alarmists haven't let me down yet.

In the days leading up to Hurricane Ike's arrival, we were shown images from meteorological professionals "predicting" where the storm would hit. Not only did Ike cover the entire Gulf of Mexico, but it was said to be on a path for Corpus Christie, then it was going to slide past Houston and make a U-turn and strike south Houston, then we were told Ike was going to make a 90 degree right turn and hit Houston directly. To get a clearer picture of what we can expect, they cut to another satellite view... And I don't know what these silly maps mean or how to interpret them. There are 32 different colors swirling around like an acid-tripped watercolor from a 2-year-old and no one gave me 3-D glasses during the commercial break. The weatherman motions claiming, "This is where the heaviest rains are falling." Which? The blue squiggle or that yellow blob? What's the pink and orange carnation looking scribble mean? Is this system like the terrorist threat level chart? Reluctantly, I heed the soothsayers’ words and flee to the prairies of rural Dallas. Incidentally, The Weather Channel is the most watched cable network. Meaning that while 9/11 was being carried out, a portion of our fellow countrymen were watching "the weather."

Aside from the smattering of mind-numbing dribble, there is only one other aspect of hurricane coverage that I find entertaining. The time when our sturdy anchors (from either back at the station or nestled safely within a bunker) touch base with Fred; and there is a "Fred" in every major disaster. Fred has the lowliest job in the studio, because Fred is always the one sent out, most certainly against his better judgment, to "experience" the storm from the front lines. All so that we at home may visualize the effects of being in the "splash zone" without soiling our ponchos. Decked out in his signature yellow raincoat and Nor’easter cap, Fred is easy to spot in the most inclement weather. His typical broadcast is given while being blown sideways clutching a stop sign; further proof that this is a genuine "Fred." "How are things out there?," our anchor prompts with a smile. You and your friends can make a game out of this interview by betting on when Fred will lose his hat, fall down, let go of the stop sign and become airborne, guesstimate the velocity to altitude ratio, or is left stranded by the camera man. Or, my other favorite is predicting when our well-groomed anchor will inform us that, "It seems we have lost contact with Fred." An unfortunate, yet foreseeable, occurrence that will undoubtedly happen at least once during every segment. But don't you worry, they have another "Fred" on standby.

I have always been under the impression that a Super 8 Hotel is capable of withstanding any sort of abuse imaginable; from unruly teenagers to chain smokers, the homeless to hookers, and all conditions of wind, rain & wild animals. As of Saturday morning, in the small town of Buffalo Beau, my theory was shattered as a news crew was live on the scene to oversee damage at the Super 8. An authentic windswept reporter interviewed a Mr. John Morrison who, with his family, felt the brunt of the storm overnight. The reporter mentions that Mr. Morrison was in room 216, and to visualize, the camera zooms in, there, the room with the beam through the front window and the roof pulled back like the lid of a tin can. Our next image is of Mr. Morrison, grinning ear to ear. "What were you thinking as it happened? When did the roof open up? What did you do?" I think it's obvious, Mr. Morrison is wondering if there will still be a complimentary continental breakfast across the street at Motel 6.

Next, we move southward, to the east-end of downtown Houston. The camera pans across the streets of this urban historic district, where every building's name includes "The Old" or "The former." We focus on The Old Ponderosa, a lavish hotel known for its large decorative windows and grand ball room. Over the muffling of the wind, our man on the street ponders who does or does not have electricity. We can see through the blown out windows of the grand ball room that the ceiling fans are still turning at full speed. Apparently the 90 mile an hour winds from the night before were not creating enough of a breeze to stir up the musty patrons of The Old Ponderosa.

One block over, surveying the dangling traffic lights, twisted trees and lamp posts, and the sea of crushed glass that glistens like melting ice in the morning sun; we see onlookers searching for direction. We catch up with Rebecca Garrison who is visiting from North Carolina. Like clockwork, our guy asks Ms. Garrison what the night was like for her. This question is too generic and fails to meet my journalistic standards. For example, I would ask, "Ms. Garrison, we and the viewers at home are happy to see that you rode out the storm unscathed. Now that the storm has passed, when you walked outside this morning to evaluate the destruction; What were the first 2 words that came to your mind? And, was the first word 'oh' or 'holy?'"

By this point, I haven't left my couch in three days. Rendered immobile by my own sense of self-inflicted panic. The constant barrage of "information" has done me in, leaving me severely traumatized. The worst of Ike has passed, however awestricken waves continue to wash over me. I breathe again and we go live to Sam Strickland of the Emergency Management Center to explain the clean-up process -- I think. Mr. Strickland runs through a laundry list of talking points for the press to nibble on: road closures, downed power lines, EMS Services, water, fire, flooding, feed the elderly, boiled children, dogs in a tree, low flow shower heads, a stuck pick-em-up truck... Wait, what? Wow...

From all of this, there were only 2 statements that I caught intact. First: If you do not have power, your electric can opener will not work. News to me. Second: Mr. Strickland explained that due to a loss in water pressure at one of the pumping stations, if you still have running tap water, do not drink it. Or if you must, boil it beforehand. Officials believe that the water supply is not contaminated; however residents should continue to take proper precautions. This statement was immediately met by the question, "Is the water supply contaminated?" I equated this to being able to ask God one question that you would get a clear and unwavering answer to. One that He had to answer. So you think and think and think; and you are convinced you have the best question possible. So, you make an appointment with God, eventually He calls you in and you ask, "Umm, excuse me? I've been searching long and hard..." Yes, my child... "Where's the bathroom in this place?"

Just before I blacked out, thinking that things couldn't possibly get any worse; what with flooding and power outages... I was sadly mistaken as the weekend weather guy said with gusto and in his best baritone of a movie trailer voice: "The worst is not over yet, there is more trouble on the way as a massive cold front moves in, where the H-I-G-H will "only" be in the low 80's.

I wish I had the energy to make all of this stuff up.

# # #

(a.k. 09.13.08)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

You need to Pay Koby's Medical Expenses

Posted by Alexander Koby on Thursday, September 11, 2008 4:19:00 PM
(Warning: Highly blunt in the typical Koby fashion.)

Today, September 11, 2008 marks 14 straight months of cancer treatment. 14 months of being in Texas, 14 months of doctor's visits, numerous hospital stays averaging 2 weeks a piece, 20 chemotherapy infusions, transfusions, a rollercoaster of blood counts, and a surgery for good measure. I am tired of being in limbo. I am tired of the endurance test and being in Texas. I am tired of weekly trips to the clinic. But and most of all, I am tired of dealing with my medical expenses. So, without your permission, I would like to hand them over to you. You shouldn't mind.

This year's presidential candidates have offered multistep plans which will be the answer to my prayers.

In the last 14 months, my medical costs have accrued to more than $1.2 million. Granted, I have insurance, but I grow wary of receiving those notices in the mail. It would be so much easier if someone, like you, could pick up the slack. After all this is what so many Americans are begging for.

Before World War II, no one expected their employer to handle health care concerns. As battles raged in Europe and domestic resources were running thin, companies offered to compensate worker with medical benefits rather than additional wages. However as tensions abroad simmered, the dependency for passing the buck has increased generation after generation. With the modern medical age, the old system is woefully outdated. Folks are expecting more and more benefits without accounting for neither inflation nor scarcity of resources.

Having a unique knowledge of medical affairs, I feel fully prepared to give you a more than adequate proposal as to why you should accommodate my health care needs. The only thing is, I don't have the gumption to ask you directly for this favor, because it's not like I'm asking to borrow a few bucks for lunch. No, I was thinking more in the thousands, of your earnings. Thus, I will employ a bully, who will use the threat of force, to collect this debt. Though, Uncle Sam considers it more of a donation, since these are monies that you will never see again anyway. Why should you sit in luxury while I struggle to make ends meet? You will see Sam at work, he will visit your house, and he will follow you to a department store. Like I said, I am too passive-aggressive to tell you this outright, but I want you to give until it hurts, because I need it more than you. Only then will it be fair.

I also demand to continue treatment at the best facility in the world. I demand preferential treatment for tests and therapies over those who are older and/or sicklier than I; after all, I am a better investment for long-term survival. I was also born on American soil, and must receive priority over foreigners or illegals with life threatening injuries. However, in 2007 The AMA reported $96 billion in lost revenue for services that went to treat illegal aliens. You should pay that too. Even better, in all likelihood, they will be in line ahead of you; but I don't have to worry. Remember, that under the umbrella of socialized medicine, there is only one health care provider who decides all treatment requests. The government. Simple, right?

Recalling Hillary Clinton's health "security" plan, which Obama has taken a shine to, the fine print was ignored my many of the anchor chair analysts. For instance, if you, a private citizen, needed to have a procedure done, that did not receive financial approval from the government, and you offered to pay a private physician (perhaps an acquaintance) out of your own pocket to perform the operation, both of you could be held liable and be facing criminal charges.

Day after day, Barack Obama says that "we," as Americans, who are struggling, who rise and fall together -- that "we" should embrace personal responsibility in assisting our fellow man, instead of always focusing on "your" needs first. Shane on you. He is also making promises that he would like to rebuild Africa, Haiti and New Orleans. I am confused. Besides, the ladder portion of your strategy doesn't interest me in the least, Senator. I don't care if 47 million people are "living" in the United States lack health insurance. I don't know them, it's not my problem is their kid needs braces or grandmother needs a new hip. As a victim, I am concerned about me, first and foremost. My own skin, my vitality. I don't care if you run a small business and have to cut employment. I don't care if you can't afford air conditioning, gasoline, cell phones and cable. You should be prepared to make sacrifices.

On the other hand, John McCain says those living in the United States should be responsible for their own health care. Plus, he neglects to mention whether or not you need to be a citizen to qualify. McCain also says that, "Americans Are Worried About Health Care Costs." With the democrat's plan, "I" wouldn't be worried about any costs, because I wouldn't be receiving the bills. "McCain will also reform The Tax Code (really, all 30,000 pages?) to offer more choices beyond Employer-Based Health Insurance Coverage. While still having the option of employer-based coverage, every family will receive a direct refundable tax credit - effectively cash - of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families to offset the cost of insurance." An actual quote. Distribute cash cards? Just like after Hurricane Katrina? You seriously expect people to put this money toward health care? That "direct rebate" is going to Best Buy for a 62" Plasma TV. Tell me I'm wrong.

With all of this in mind, I know you are more than eager to break out your cheque books and take care of this little favor for me. In fact, your voter identification cards are a better alternative. After all, I know you're good for it.

# # #

(a.k. 09.11.08)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A New Face for Conservatism has the Opposition Scared

Posted by Alexander Koby on Thursday, September 04, 2008 9:00:00 PM
If you had mentioned the name Sarah Palin a month ago, I would have had to consult my political rolodex to see who you were referring to. Today, most Americans could tell you that Palin is John McCain's Republican Vice-presidential nominee.

It's difficult to fully quantify the traits that personify a leader. "You've either got it or you don't." The inspirational foresight that compels others to gravitate toward you, to trust and believe in your wisdom, and follow you anywhere.

After five straight days of harsh rhetoric from the media, the Left, the opposition -- attacking her family, her history and her abilities; Palin was able to stand before the "world" on September 3rd, 2008 and deliver a speech that will make history. Staying cool and collected, confident with conviction, Palin declared her acceptance to the party and even to me personally. For anyone who doubted her, it became unmistakably clear that "Sarah Palin's got it."

This morning, a Rasmussen poll revealed that 51% of voters feel the media is intentionally attacking Palin. Fraught with such claims as, "A woman can't maintain a career and raise a family." This, in addition to superimposing Palin's head over that of a bikini model. How hypocritical is this? At times, the American people can easily be mistaken for a bunch of children.

During the DNC, while Hillary Clinton was professing her support for Obama, I couldn't grasp how convention attendees could be brought to tears by a politician's address. Religious figures, close friends and perhaps celebrities; but a politician? Last night, I understood. Though I may not have wept, I did feel energy.

Year after year, we see the usual suspects at the podium vying for our support: Reed, Pelosi, The Clinton's, The Bush's, Kucinich, Giuliani, Biden, Edwards... The American people are tired of these suits. The American people want an evolution of the political machine and Sarah Palin is the face of a new conservative party that appeals to mainstream America. This is a woman who has been far away from the inner-Beltway antics, both geographically and professionally, and brings viewpoint that solidifies the ticket.

Sarah is one of us, with a real family that isn't perfect, whose husband is a blue collar union member, a hockey mom who has the courage to speak her mind.

Candidates like John Kerry, who presented himself as a member of the intellectual elite, "having all the answers" and an insistence for knowing exactly what was best for each of us -- This trifecta did him a grave disservice by losing touch with the "common man." There's no eye-to-eye emotional bond when your candidate is always standing above you.

People are people and we all wake up in the morning wondering if our children will be able to make it in this world. So whether you are giving a Labor Day speech on Main Street or an address from the South Lawn, the basics remain the same -- the sincerity of your message, the ability to connect with your audience and your strength of character.

In less than a week, Sarah Palin has shown that she can handle herself with grace and go toe-to-toe with the big boys. She is ready (if not enthusiastic) for the challenge -- a challenge that is sending chills down the spines of all her self-conscious naysayers.

# # #

(a.k. 09.04.08)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Between Barack and a Birthplace

Posted by Alexander Koby on Wednesday, August 27, 2008 10:05:53 PM
Perhaps you ran across this story tucked away in the depths of a local newspaper or streamed across your daily news feed. At any rate, I felt compelled to address this issue.

There has been a buzz recently concerning the authenticity of Sen. Barack Obama's and Sen. John McCain's birth certificates. As you know, being a "natural-born citizen" is a prerequisite to taking the oath of the presidency.

With a little digging, it became clear that even though McCain was born in Panama, it was to naturally-born American parents and occurred within the borders of a U.S. [military] controlled zone of the canal -- qualifying as "American soil." Okay, acceptable.

However, the legitimacy of Obama's birth record remains cloudy. There have been rumors that the document has been forged, in addition to there being evidence of multiple copies denoting his birth taking place at two different Hawaiian hospitals.

Doing my own "e-search," it is difficult to find a credible source that does not blatantly inject its own "spin" to the story. Two lines into an article, spotting keywords within the subtext such as "liberal media conspiracy" and "lunacy from the Christian right," it becomes painstakingly apparent which direction the author has taken. Other unreliable bloggers side-step their premise entirely and trail off into their own sporadically rambling tangents -- thus proving only one theory: that they fail to grasp a keen understanding toward the mechanics of the English language.

Nevertheless, the Insider released a report stating that, "His presumed Kenyan-born father was foreign-born, and his mother was too young at the time of birth to confer natural born status by virtue of her American citizenship. Thus his citizenship comes down to proving he was born in the USA, and his campaign has staked its credibility on the authenticity of the Daily Kos-derived birth certificate image."

According to Hawaiian law and unlike most other states, birth certificates are not public record and are only available upon request to family members. In early June, after numerous requests, the Obama campaign finally released a copy of the certificate; immediately sparking controversy. Various fact finders and news outlets have professed their findings with numerous revisions. Claiming that the document is the work of a would-be "Photoshopper," or a legitimate product of a Kinko's quick-copy.

In this day and age, with toasters & YouTube, and with personal views & grievances aside, can we please locate definitive, unwavering, paperwork and testimony that we can all agree on beyond a shadow of a doubt? Must we be subjected to hear-say from a friend of a friend, shoddy mimeographs and lack of official seals? All of which so obviously begs for speculation.

In related news, Philip Berg, a Philadelphia attorney and Hillary Clinton supporter, has filed suit against Barack Obama, the Democratic National Committee and the Federal Election Commission. The action seeks an injunction preventing the senator from continuing his candidacy and a court order enjoining the DNC from nominating him, all on grounds that Sen. Obama is constitutionally ineligible to run for and hold the office of President of the United States.

Will all of this go anywhere? Perhaps, perhaps not.

I am neither a certified forgery expert nor do I have vast experience with comparative analysis. I can however, as can you, formulate my own conclusions based on the information at hand while factoring in the interpretations of others. What troubles me more than the authenticity of a birth certificate, is the notion that too many Americans are willing to shrug-off requirements such as natural-born citizenship; saying, "Well, does it really matter?" The further we move away from the original framework of the constitution, adding our own insights and amendments, the more dangerous and opinionated our interpretations become.

This leaves me wondering: Will we ever "honestly" play by the rules, or continue to make them up as we go along -- each adding our own "spin."

# # #

(a.k. 06.26.08)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Facebook: "Change" simply for "Change Sake"

Posted by Alexander Koby on Tuesday, August 05, 2008 9:43:00 PM
So, this is the future of Facebook? My first question is, "Seriously?" Followed by, "Will this 'new' layout become the 'only' layout?" After being hyped for so long, I was truly expecting something with flair, pizzazz, and dare I say -- personality. The layout feels more awkward than Vista, and colder than the CIA mainframe -- this, black and blue scatter plot. Change for change sake is not the same as innovation.

For example, why did the developers think that restacking birthdays is more user-friendly? Shouldn't "Today" and "Tomorrow" remain above a person's name? Next, is it just me or did the Font get smaller again? Sheesh, I need everyday glasses, reading glasses and now -- Facebook glasses... Actually the Font is the same, however, there's just more white-space than ever before; makeing the site feel overly wordy in some places and barren in others. The old version in its compact state was cleaner, more to the point -- despite the clutter of Applications.

I never liked Mini-Feed to begin with, but now, it has been jumbled with Wall posts. Despite being separated with silver backgrounds, having to sift through every single action or update, or continually having to click the "Posts by Others" filter, is tedious.

Why have all Friends been dumped into one grouping? This seems to defeat the purpose of being in a specific network or selecting a primary network. The ability to select "Top Friends" isn't exactly new, but it's a handy feature. Though, I do like having the ability to hide the "Friends in Other Networks" list. It also seems that we no longer have the ability to rearrange boxes or collapse them, thus adding to the "never-ending scroll." From here, the list just goes on, and on, and onward still...

In summary, the Facebook techies need to go back to the drawing board and start collaborating with those trendy right-brained Apple artists and hopefully roll out with a more eye-pleasing skin next quarter.

In the meantime -- Stick with the classics, stick with what works.

# # #
(a.k. 08.05.08)
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Americans "Okay" with $4 a Gallon

Posted by Alexander Koby on Wednesday, May 28, 2008 2:20:00 PM
During the month of May, two notable pieces of legislation from both sides of the aisle were presented to the United States Senate as a means of attempting to address increased fuel costs as they inch past $4 per gallon. As it stands, both of these bills are sitting in committee, struggling to gain traction.
  • American Energy Production Act (s.2958) sponsored by Sen. Domenici (R-NM); a measure to expand fuel exploration within ANWR and the coastal plains of the United States, lift the moratorium on refinery permits/construction, and create a balance between state & federal revenues. Full Press Release >
  • The Consumer-First Energy Act of 2008 (s.2991) sponsored by Sen. Reid (D-NV); a measure designed to create a 25% tax on the profits of major oil companies, tightens the rules restricting the use of foreign tax credits on oil and gas related income, suspend filling of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), punish price gouging, limit excessive speculation in the oil markets, and crack down on OPEC. Full Press Release >
fuelgaugereport.com
I have read through both of these, along with other articles, and I am left thinking that neither Senators Reid nor Domenici are in touch with reality. The government can tax and restrict all it wants, but we are still failing to focus on the bigger picture.

Spain, Australia and Brazil are well ahead of us when it comes to alternative fuel sources; and it is not just corn. Wind, solar and thermal energy are all being harnessed to supply the needs of small to medium sized cities.

I've also noticed that for some reason, people and news outlets alike, consistently refer to oil companies as if they were human beings gaining "record profits" and amassing wealth, caviar and multimillion dollars homes. This is simply not the case and it pains me every time I hear. An Intro to Economics course would tell you that no company, from McDonalds to Exxon, maintains wealth. Sure there are profits, however those profits are quickly depleted in order to satisfy fixed costs (such as operational expenses, distribution fees, wages, etc) and the remainder to variable costs (such as research and development, infrastructure, expansion, etc.)

Further, if we want to get serious about profits, lets talk about significance of "profit margin" -- the percentage of net income divided by net sales. Basically, the percentage of profit left over once all of a company's fixed costs are met. This percentage is then typically used to fulfill those variable costs we talked about. For crude oil the average is around 9%, compared to pharmaceutical distributors which stands closer to 17% -- there are your "windfall" profits. Now, The Consumer-First Energy Act (CFEA) of 2008 calls for a 25% tax on "windfall" profits of oil companies, (such as Royal Dutch Shell PLC, BP PLC and Burlington Resources Inc.) who are already paying 30%-40% in taxes. This tax also applies to companies who are not running at capacity or who are not reinvesting in alternative energy. The bill also urges refineries to increase production; most of which who are already running at full capacity. So, there is nothing to be gained here, other than the hopes of filling a piggy bank slush fund.

Moreover, the CFEA encourages lawsuits against price gouging for people who do not grasp the rules of supply and demand. Price fluctuation is designed to protect us from ourselves in the time of a shortage. Are there isolated incidents? Sure, but it is no where near an epidemic. Gas prices are higher because we are dependent on foreign oil and have no other functioning alternatives on the table. With the moratorium on drilling in many domestic regions, the United States is losing its leverage within the global market because we have nothing of our own to bargain with. Canada and Mexico, our two largest oil importers, could care less about our corn. Currently, in Iran, the price of fuel is 44¢/gl, Saudi Arabia 45¢, Venezuela 12¢, and Russia at 88¢. Why? Granted the U.S. has a higher rate of consumption than these nations, however these nations also allow drilling within their borders. Nevertheless, even if the U.S. actually began constructing more refineries, opened the northern section of ANWR to production and continued to supply our strategic reserves; it is still only a band-aid on an ever growing wound.

Additionally, I have come to believe that the "scare" tactics peddled by Al Gore (and others) regarding the dooms day scenarios of global warming are meant to weaken the American economy rather than improve the global environment. Instead of exploring our own petroleum fields, Americans are being guilt-tripped into lowering their thermostats, reduce energy consumption and implement green practices. In essence, we are being told to implore "lifestyle changes" versus seek "economic independence."

Why have we not had any notable and well orchestrated rallies on Capitol Hill in protest to the rising costs of Energy and food? We had massive gatherings for civil rights, homosexuality world peace, etc. Why not this? Are we not all affected? At this point, the common consensus is, "Well, deal with it." A founding father once said that a government belongs to its citizens. It is time that we an together and truly concerns. Until then, I am lead to believe that even when gas begins to creep north of $7 per gallon, Americans will continue to mutter to themselves as they fill up their gas tanks ... and do not say that it will not get there. We, as a people, need an aggressive advocate, who is a compelling speaker and who has a dedicated belief in practical & realistic solutions.

I would consider being such a spokesman, however I am a little preoccupied.
--
 
AAA National Gas Average - 5.28.2008

Regular ........ $3.944
Mid ............. $4.188
Premium ...... $4.339
Diesel .......... $4.778
E85 ............. $3.317

# # #
(a.k. 05.28.08)
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Dr. Quacks will be seeing you shortly

Posted by Alexander Koby on Tuesday, May 20, 2008 2:25:00 PM
Friend or Fowl?
 
While partially coherent and clicking through the "brain-drain," local Channel 11 (KHOU Houston) ran a brief snip-it during their evening newscast informing patrons of plastic surgery as to the importance of ensuring their physician's reputability. Suddenly lucid, I wondered if this bulletin was really necessary? I was always under the impression that Googling your surgeon before treatment was a [Duh!] given. Even minor surgeries or simple doctor's visits can carry inherent and unforeseen risks, which could be incurred by even the best of practitioners. I can understand having an aversion to all of the gory details related to an operation; though toying with your well being is not like ordering a fast food hamburger, in that, it is probably more beneficial to your psyche by being oblivious to the handling process.

There is a great deal of trust that must be shared between patient and physician. Just thinking back to my recent highly extensive surgery, which was a coordinated effort between cranial, neurology and plastics; I wonder how my perspective may have been different had I taken all of this for granted. Interestingly enough, the reconstructive plastics process required the most time and precision. Even though my surgeons were competent and confident, I still did my homework ahead of time. One thing is for sure, once you are in the operating room and under the twilight of anesthesia, there is no turning back. If it were me or someone I cared about, I would make damn sure I verified the surgeon's credentials, scanned their track record and believed fully in their abilities.

Nevertheless, I thought I would take this opportunity to assist the community in a public service announcement by pointing out some of the warning signs to watch out for before going under the knife...

- If your physician's surgical instruments include a Spork and a Crazy Straw.

- If your physician's scrubs read "Property of the State of Missouri Corrections."

- If your physician offers a discount with the purchase of a
    year supply of Omaha Steaks.

- If your physician uses laughing gas to make balloons out of
    rubber gloves before surgery.

- If your physician's operating room is a 10x10 space at Public Storage.

- If your physician lightens a cancer diagnosis with a lollipop.

- If your physician's medical certificate is printed on the back of a
    Burger King placemat.

- If your physician's anesthesia of choice is heroin.

- If your physician's clinic is located next door to a mortuary.

- If your physician can prove that they performed Michael Jackson's
    "reconstructive" surgeries.

- If your physician also plays a doctor on TV.

- If your vasectomy physician's last name is Slicer or Dicer.

- If your face-lift physician looks like Keith Richards.

- If your Dental and Orthodontia carry the names "South Texas Dental
    Services" (STDs) and "Right Smiles Orthodontics" (RSO.)

- If your physician refers to you as "Boat Payment #7."

- If your physician thinks a pathologist is someone who gives directions.

- If your physician was fired from working at a butcher shop.

- If your physician prescribes Tic-Tac's and Jelly Beans as directed.

- If your physician says they have performed this procedure on
    cats dozens of times.

- If your physician has a lawyer present during surgery.

- If your physician excuses themselves from the room after an exam,
    and can then be heard to say muffled through the walls,
    "Wow, what the hell was that?! I've never seen that before,
    better check the book..."

- If your physician greets you with "High evry-buddy!"
    And you reply, "Hi, Dr. Nick!"

- If your physician advertises on the back of a grocery store receipt.

- If your physician boasts that they graduated last, but not least!
# # #
 
(a.k. 05.20.08)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Art Project" a threat to National Security

Posted by Alexander Koby on Saturday, April 05, 2008 8:24:00 PM
On the quiet sidewalks of UNF, few would have foreseen the drama that would soon unfold on a sunny spring time afternoon. When a number of unmarked "packages" were scattered around the campus. I am referring to the recent university art project in which a student chose to create an audio box that would play a message via a telephone for those who picked up the receiver. An concept like any other, though with a few minor, a concept that could have turned out a whole lot better.

If this were an era free of terrorism, these could have been presumed to be obsolete garbage, rather than a possible IED (improvised explosive device.) These days, simple technology that is rigged together could be mistaken for having overtly sinister applications and most individuals have been made to feel overly suspicious of seemingly harmless objects. For instance, a neighbor's cat, their own luggage or those green peas. Also consider that in this information age, most youths haven't seen a tick-tock bell-clock, let alone a rotary phone, anywhere outside their grandmother's house. Even a CD player can be looked at as "old fashioned."

It is then no surprise to hear that a concerned report of: a "black" box with "wires" protruding from it, connected to a dial phone, resting on a bench; might trigger a hastened response. Perhaps if the "packages" had been brightly colored and stenciled with suns, smiley-faces, hearts and peace signs; would they have seemed a little less out of place to the casual observer? Or would there have been the same level of attention given to this report as well?

Somehow I always manage to pick the worst days to skip school -- always missing the fun and excitement of a imminent danger. This sends me right back to the good old days of high school. Yes, a simpler time when all we had to worry about was gang activity, daily hallway drawls, a code orange attack from al-qaeda and worst of all, an outbreak of rancid lunch meat. Fortunately, these matters were always quickly dissolved before any serious repercussions could be felt. Not to mention our fool-proof first line of defense. Basically we were instructed by administrators to remain in our classrooms, turn off the lights, cover the windows with duct tape and hide in the dark. Brilliant, yes? So imagine my surprise to hear that the campus was briskly evacuated upon discovery of the "packages."

In retrospect, had the year been 1974, and this been a psychology experiment, the student would have immediately received an a for his efforts. And, possibly a spot on one of those bizarre black & white educational documentaries to describe the project.

There is a an angle of this event however that the news media neglected to explore. As Paul Harvey would say, stay tuned for "the rest of the story."

.. .. ..

Three days later, after being detained and suspected of education terrorism, the student is cleared of any wrong doing and is released from federal custady. He proceeds to return to his parent's home to try and avoid further attention. Tired and empty handed, he arrives, flopping down in an armchair. He is soon greeted by his mother, who asks warmly, "So, how did your art project go? Yes, the one you've been working on all hours of the night for weeks now, out there in the garage?" to which he replies, "Well, it got a little more attention than I expected." "Oh, that's fantastic, I'm so proud of you."

"What did passer's by think of the project?" "They thought they were suspicious and potentially dangerous. Security was called in to remove them and the campus was evacuated." "Amazing, students chose to forgo their classes and instead participate in your art project."

"Did the art project win an award or certificate?" "No, but I won free stay in county lock-up and I'm pretty sureI now have a record." "How thoughtful of them and good to know they keep track of newsmakers."

"Are they going to let you keep it on display?" "I doubt it. After the bomb squad retrieved the packages and exploded them in a vacent trailer park on the edge of town, there really wasn't much left." "That's wonderful dear. We should gather the ashes and store them in a pickle jar atop the refrigerator."

His father has only one comment, "Son, when the hell are you going to clean out the garage? Oh, Martha, what happened to all the telephones? You know I don't know how to work these dadgum cordless things..."

(Note: Some details have been elaborated for comic effect.)

# # #
 
()a.k. 04.05.08)
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

100 Criticisms to the "100 reasons to support Hillary Clinton"

Posted by Alexander Koby on Saturday, March 01, 2008 9:00:00 AM
As soon as I stumbled upon this article I thought, well, there goes my afternoon. Oddly enough, analysts from both ends of the political spectrum are calling the March 4th primaries, to be held in Texas & Ohio, "Hillary's Last Stand." They are predicting that wins for Sen. Obama will most likely secure his nomination at the DNC. Are these speculations correct? We will just have to wait and see. One thing I do know for certain is that Sen. Clinton is in this race for the long haul and has no intension of backing down.

And as such, I have compiled my own nonpartisan list of 100 Criticisms challenging or questioning each of the 100 reasons published by David Speakman (02.12.2008.) These are purely first blush responses to the actions and statements listed.

I would also like to mention that, in no way do I mean to annoy, upset or offend those who support Sen. Clinton; and that I harbor no ill will or disrespect for her personally or for her contribution. No candidate is perfect, and truth be told, I do not favor Sen. McCain or Sen. Obama either. The writing of this article is simply a reaction to the widespread doubts and frustrations I have with the political system as a whole; this includes President Bush and various other members of Congress, from both sides of the isle, who've sidestepped their promises to the American voter. My goal is merely to encourage voters to think before they act. To question what they are being told by each candidate and by the media. To perform their own research, ensuring that the information they've received is accurate. So that when they step into that voting booth, they can be confident that they are making the best decision possible. Additionally, If a list of reasons to support either McCain or Obama is published between now and November 4th, they should expect the same level of criticism.


Reason #1 to support Hillary:
In Arkansas she was instrumental in straightening out their school system - taking it from one of the worst systems to a role model used by other troubled schools on how to improve public education.

Criticism #1:
In Arkansas, under the Clinton's, education moved from #49 to a record #47.

Reason #2 to support Hillary:
In 2006, she led the fight to kill the anti-gay Republican constitutional amendment that for the first time would have added laws to the Constitution that would INCREASE discrimination

Criticism #2:
Under the law, no gay person is subject to any less rights than any other fellow citizen.

Reason #3 to support Hillary:
After being pummeled by the public for trying to pass Universal Health care while she was First Lady, she dusted herself off and in 1997, led a federal effort that provided insurance support for children whose parents were unable to provide them with health coverage.

Criticism #3:
Universal health care in any form is a dangerous. And, pandering to voters with "the children" is a cheap political tactic.

Reason #4 to Support Hillary:
She was able to secure a raise in research funding for prostate cancer and childhood asthma at the National Institutes of Health.

Criticism #4:
With the help of other politicians, this is one of the few acceptable endeavors in Hillary Clinton's tattered history.

Reason #5 to Support Hillary:
She initiated the Adoption and Safe Families Act

Criticism #5:
The Senate introduced the Safe Adoptions and Family Environments Act (S. 511-"S.A.F.E.") Act in March, which eventually stalled due to a lack of consensus. In April, the House passed the Adoption Promotion Act of 1997 (H.R. 867) sponsored by Representatives Dave Camp (R-MI) and Barbara B. Kennelly (D-CT). The original sponsors of S. 511, Senators John H. Chafee (R-RI) and John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) then formed a bipartisan working group to introduce a second Senate bill in September, the Promotion of Adoption, Safety, and Support for Abused and Neglected Children (S. 1195--"P.A.S.S."). Several controversial provisions again stalled the Senate bill, particularly a provision to use state food stamp and Medicaid administrative funds to finance its provisions. In a last attempt to resuscitate child welfare and adoption legislation prior to adjournment, the House and Senate negotiated an agreement and finally passed H.R. 867/H. Res. 327, the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. ASFA was then signed into law by President Bill Clinton. Further, Cornelia Ashby of the General Accounting Office testified that there has been a 57% increase in the number of adoptions; though, due to the lack of comparable pre- and post-ASFA data, it is difficult to determine the weight, if any, of ASFA's role in this increase and changes in other foster care outcomes.

Reason #6 to Support Hillary:
She's authored a great deal of legislation during her years on the Armed Services Committee that has passed regarding increased and improved benefits for our returning Iraq veterans.

Criticism #6:
So have other Senators.

Reason #7 to Support Hillary:
She was one of the key Senators who fought to give our military badly needed raises and increase in benefits. For being such flag wavers, it was the Republicans and Bush who resisted these attempts to show our military how much we value and appreciate them.

Criticism #7:
These are the same Democrats who scream anti-war while not fully grasping the threats that face our nation.

Reason #8 to Support Hillary:
Since 1974 she has been fighting for a woman's right to choose.

Criticism #8:
Abortion is not a federal issue.

Reason #9 to Support Hillary:
She is fighting to lift the ban on stem cell research to cure devastating diseases.

Criticism #9:
Stem cell research should be performed by private institutes. The chances of wasteful spending are significantly lower.

Reason #10 to Support Hillary:
Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)

Criticism #10:
According to the Guttmacher Institute, teen pregnancies between 1982 and 2002 had already fallen 30% and continues to steadily decline.

Reason #11 to Support Hillary:
Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)

Criticism #11:
Abortion is not a federal issue.

Reason #12 to Support Hillary:
Vows to protect next generation by paying off national debt.

Criticism #12:
With what money? By increasing taxes?

Reason #13 to Support Hillary:
Fought in Congress to "Help people facing foreclosure; do not just bail-out banks." (Aug 2007)

Criticism #13:
Most people suffering from foreclosures could not afford the loans in the first place; and thus is a result of their own actions.

Reason #14 to Support Hillary:
In 1962 she met MLK Jr. preaching a sermon in Chicago and learned from him the importance of equal rights for all.

Criticism #14:
I have witnessed countless news reels and read a number of biographical accounts featuring MLK Jr. This too makes me an expert on equality and just as qualified to lead the nation.

Reason #15 for Supporting Hillary:
In 1965 she brought black classmates to her until-then all-white church.

Criticism #15:
Many other northerners did this as well.

Reason #16 to Support Hillary:
Since 1995 has criticized China's human rights abuses.

Criticism #16:
In 2000, Congress approved the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) (P.L. 106-386), sponsored by Sen. Brownback and the late Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-MN), authorizing funding for efforts to combat trafficking, including prevention activities, counseling and treatment services, food, shelter, translation and legal assistance to survivors, and monitoring efforts.

Reason #17 to Support Hillary:
IN 1988 Instituted gender diversity Report Card within the American Bar Association, which sets standards for lawyers in the U.S.

Criticism #17:
There are more female and minority lawyers today than ever before.

Reason #18 to Support Hillary:
In 1972 worked as a lawyer suing white-only schools, working with Marian Wright Edelman on enforcing school desegregation in the South.

Criticism #18:
In an interview with Shelly R. Fredman on AlterNet, Howard Zinn suggested that Edelman would make a better Democratic Presidential Candidate than either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Edelman serves on the board of the Robin Hood Foundation, a charitable organization that attempts to alleviate poverty-related problems in New York City, New York.

Reason #19 to Support Hillary:
In October, 2000 she said it's not enough for America just to apologize for slavery and move on; we need to concentrate on civil rights now.

Criticism #19:
Civil rights now are better than they were 40 years ago. As time goes on, and as those with deep seeded prejudices die, the discrimination will continue to dwindle.

Reason #20 to Support Hillary:
Has been pushing for a "Privacy Bill of Rights" for all Americans since 2000.

Criticism #20:
So know only the government will regulate what information is shared about me? Why o I still feel uneasy. And, if this bill is such a good idea, that should be widely accepted for its merits, then why has it only come to light now in 2008?

Reason #21 to support Hillary:
Will end do not ask, do not tell in the military, "Gay soldiers need to shoot straight, not be straight." November 2003.

Criticism #21:
Prejudices will still exist no matter where you go and what policies are enacted.

Reason #22 to Support Hillary:
Supports civil unions, with full equality of federal benefits.

Criticism #22:
Abortion is not a federal issue.

Reason #23 to Support Hillary:
Voted YES on adding violent crimes based on victim's sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes.

Criticism #23:
(See #27.)

Reason #24 to support Hillary:
Rated 96% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance.

Criticism #24:
Affirmative Action in this day and age is demeaning to the idea of equality. Insisting that, despite the great strides made by the civil rights movement, that blacks are still incapable of achieving success without the helping hand of government. How absurd.

Reason #25 to support Hillary:
Freedom of Speech: Voted NO on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration.

Criticism #25:
Be happy that you live in a country that does not have you shoot dead for its flag.

Reason #26 to Support Hillary: [A.K.A "Whoopi Goldberg's reason to support Hillary"]
Voted YES on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore. (Mar 2005)

Criticism #26:
If the tax burden was not so detrimental, these companies would not have to outsource in order to remain in business and cover their fixed operating expenses.

Reason #27 to Support Hillary:
Voted more funding and stricter sentencing for prosecution of hate crimes. (Apr 2001)

Criticism #27:
Any crime inflicted upon someone, who may be in any way different from their accuser, can be classified as a hate crime.

Reason #28 to Support Hillary:
Voted to Require DNA testing for all federal executions. (Mar 2001)

Criticism #28:
As it should be.

Reason #29 to Support Hillary:
Although she was in college during the height of the drug culture in the late 1960s, she was devoted to work on civil rights instead of partying and taking drugs.

Criticism #29:
So. I went to college too and did not become a pot-head either.

Reason #30 to Support Hillary:
She is fighting for Universal pre-kindergarten.

Criticism #30:
Education in this country is bad enough as it is. Out of the top 30 developed nations, the US is ranked 22nd in reading and 26th in mathematics. Why should "we" send our kids off to the government even earlier to be educated?

Reason #31 to Support Hillary:
Wants to establish an education "Bill of Rights" - Establish right to education from pre-school thru college.

Criticism #31:
Hillary Clinton would also like to see free education for illegal aliens. (See also #30.)

Reason #32 to Support Hillary:
Since 1998 has fought publicly to keep art and music programs in public schools. "Arts education is needed in our schools."

Criticism #32:
Education, period, is needed in our schools.

Reason #33 to Support Hillary:
'Government should pay off all student loans for teachers who go to urban schools." March, 2000

Criticism #33:
With what money? Just because you choose to work at an urban school that is not making the grade should not automatically entitle you to exceptional benefits and additional tax payer dollars.

Reason #34 to Support Hillary:
Wants a complete re-write, a Total change in No Child Left Behind. (August, 2007)

Criticism #34:
"No Child Left Behind" was a failure, and will remain a failure despite Democratic or Republican rewrites.

Reason #35 to Support Hillary:
Rated 82% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes.

Criticism #35:
Pro government education. The NEA is the largest union in the country, whose former speaker once said, "human beings incapable of engaging in competition."

Reason #36 to Support Hillary
Voted YES on spending $448B on education & debt reduction instead of Bush's tax cut for the rich. (Apr 2001)

Criticism #36:
Do you know what the tax burden is on the rich? Around 38%. Further, the top 10% of income pay 90% of all the taxes gathered by the federal government. Its foolish and ignorant to say the rich are not paying their "fair" share. Plus, that's $448B that was just pissed away. (See also #30-#32.)

Reason #37 to Support Hillary:
Wants to "Remove energy dependence on countries who would harm us." (Jun 2006)

Criticism #37:
So, now there actually are "countries that want to harm us?" Additionally, our largest oil importer is: (take a guess...) Nope, its Canada, followed by Mexico. (See also #38, #41, #42, #44-#46.)

Reason #38 to Support Hillary:
Wants to build a "$50B strategic energy research fund from taxing oil companies." (Oct 2006)

Criticism #38:
Sen. Clinton wants to seize profits from the greedy oil companies; even though I doubt she can, or ever will explain the difference between "profits" and "profit margin." Oil companies see about a 9% profit margin, which is hardly anything; the rest of those profits go back into the company to fund further production and development. This compared to big drug companies that see about a 40% profit margin.

Reason #39 to Support Hillary:
Wants to Invest in alternative energy; jobs that wo not be outsourced.

Criticism #39:
What, invest in human laborers who will work for minimum wage?

Reason #40 to Support Hillary:
Called on U.S. to Ratify Kyoto; and fund more mass transit. (Sep 2000)

Criticism #40:
How do you plan on convincing people to give up their cars? And, how do you plan to fund it? A bullet train was recently proposed in Florida, and then was repealed less than a year later due to the exorbitant costs that would be encored.

Reason #41 to Support Hillary:
Rated 100% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence. (Dec 2006)

Criticism #41:
Sen. Clinton voted against drilling ANWR and voted against President Bush's Energy Policy. How do you plan on running the country independently?

Reason #42 to Support Hillary:
Voted NO on drilling for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)

Criticism #42:
Do you mean on the grounds of national security? Or, are there grounds with signs that read National Security? Further, this is an asinine statement. What security risk is posed by drilling for our own oil from within territories that belong to us? (See also #45.)

Reason #43 to Support Hillary:
Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)

Criticism #43:
Hydrogen, though efficient, will be a costly means of transportation for the average American. There are also a number of safety concerns.

Reason #44 to Support Hillary:
Voted NO on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)

Criticism #44:
No one has proposed an affordable & realistic energy policy. We as a society barely accept solar energy beyond powering our calculators, and that one was easy to figure out.

Reason #45 to Support Hillary:
Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)

Criticism #45:
Have you seen ANWR? The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a barren wasteland that only saw spikes in vegetation and wildlife growth after a pipeline was built. (See also #42.)

Reason #46 to Support Hillary: (listen up Louisiana!)
Voted YES on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)

Criticism #46:
Sen. Clinton is against using our own oil reserves, so this must have been $3.1B in oil from the same cartels and "countries that want to harm us." (See also #37.)

Reason #47 to Support Hillary:
Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)

Criticism #47:
Yea, because global warming does not exist. In the last century, six of the ten warmest years on record occurred before 1940 and the construction of super highways.

Reason #48 to Support Hillary:
Voted YES on making oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal. (Jun 2007)

Criticism #48:
If Sen. Clinton is opposed to using our own oil reserves, President Bush's energy policy and importing oil from international cartels, then where does she expect fuel to come from?

Reason #49 to Support Hillary:
Rated 89% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes.

Criticism #49:
However, Sen. Clinton voted against the confirmation of Gale Norton, a noted lifelong conservationist and environmental advocate, as Secretary of the Interior. (See also #50)

Reason #50 to Support Hillary:
Voted NO on confirming Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior. (Jan 2001)

Criticism #50:
Gale Norton is noted as a lifelong conservationist, public servant and advocate for bringing common sense solutions to environmental policy." I thought these were ground floor liberal values? Norton was later sworn in as the 48th Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior in January 2001.

Reason #51 to Support Hillary:
Called on Bush to "Put someone in charge of Katrina recovery who actually cares." (Aug 2007)

Criticism #51:
The cold harsh truth is... Like most other disasters, two months after, nobody in Anytown, USA (not directly affected by Katrina) did not really care anymore. And, two years later they said, "You are still living in a FEMA trailer or whining about hotel extensions? Get off your butt and get a job."

Reason #52 to Support Hillary:
Her Support for green-collar job training

Criticism #52:
What, how to pick oranges? Not quite. According to both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama, the theory is that "green-collar jobs" will be created in the pursuit of alternative energy. The only problem is that most private companies are already bogged down with various fixed costs such as pension plans and medical coverage. And if Congress takes up this challenge, it will take them five years alone just to figure out what color to paint the research facility before any research is even started.

Reason #53 to Support Hillary:
Introduced bill to Better track kids' products for exposures to toxic materials coming from China.

Criticism #53:
If this was anything similar to AFSA, it failed.

Reason #54 to support Hillary:
Calls for the government to treat kids as "child citizens" not "minors" under the law. (Since Dec 1999)

Criticism #54:
Are you kidding me? According to my handy dandy dictionary, a "minor" is someone under the legal age of full responsibility. Further, is Sen. Clinton going to call for a "Kids' Bill of Rights?" Would "Child Citizens" then have the "right" to plead the 5th for breaking curfew, allow children to arm themselves with spitball shooters and restrict a parent's ability for search and seizures of their child's room? Give me a break.

Reason #55 to Support Hillary:
Rated 0% by the Christian Coalition

Criticism #55:
No surprise there.

Reason #56 to Support Hillary:
Voted YES on enlarging NATO to include poor Eastern Europe nations. (May 2002

Criticism #56:
Again with the poor.

Reason #57 to Support Hillary:
"Smartest strategic choice is peace." (Nov 1999)

Criticism #57:
You are not running for Miss America. Our enemies are not interested in negotiating by holding hands and singing Cumbya.

Reason #58 to Support Hillary:
Calling for a NATO-enforced no-fly zone to end Darfur genocide. (June, 2007

Criticism #58:
Darfur is a mess, and will remain a mess, so long as corrupt African leaders remain in power.

Reason #59 to Support Hillary:
IN the 1970s worked to pass Constitutional Amendment to allow young people aged 18, 19, 20 to vote.

Criticism #59:
And look how many young people actually give a damn about voting today. Not too many.

Reason #60 to Support Hillary:
Voted NO on allowing lobbyist gifts to Congress

Criticism #60:
This is unethical anyway and acceptance of such gifts by elected officials would be bribery. And, do not get me started on the Norman Hau scandal Sen. Clinton.

Reason #61 to Support Hillary:
Pledges to support $50B for AIDS relief in US and world

Criticism #61:
How? And, we have local concerns that could also use this funding. Further, AIDS research should be left to the private sector and relief to private charity.

Reason #62 to Support Hillary:
Rated 100% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record.

Criticism #62:
Universal health care is dangerous and impractical for our society, no matter how good it may sound.

Reason #63 to Support Hillary:
Voted NO on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Apr 2001)

Criticism #63:
Prescription drug costs and the need for benefits are much lower than they are made out to be. Around 4% of all seniors are actually struggling.

Reason #64 to Support Hillary:
Voted YES on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages. (Jun 2001)

Criticism #64:
Medical malpractice settlements are out of control.

Reason #65 to Support Hillary:
Says, "Torture cannot be American policy, period." (Sep 2007)

Criticism #65:
Torture is not American policy. Liberty is American policy, period.

Reason #66 to Support Hillary:
She would never say anything as creepy and cult-like as "We are the ones we have been waiting for."

Criticism #66:
No, Hillary Clinton's just been running for President ever since she was 12.

Reason #67 to Support Hillary:
Rated 100% by SANE, indicating a pro-peace voting record.

Criticism #67:
You are not running for Miss America.

Reason # 68 to Support Hillary:
Voted NO on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision. (Dec 2005)

Criticism #68:
The Patriot Act monitored international communications between the US and known terrorist networks abroad. Its expiration is a threat to our national security.

Reason #69 to Support Hillary:
Voted YES on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods. (Sep 2006)

Criticism #69:
These are fine as is.

Reason #70 to Support Hillary:
Voted YES on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees. (Sep 2006)

Criticism #70:
Most all of Guantanamo's detainees are not American citizens.

Reason #71 to Support Hillary:
Voted YES on limiting soldiers' deployment to 12 months. (Jul 2007)

Criticism #71:
With the help of other politicians, this is one of the few acceptable endeavors in Hillary Clinton's tattered history.

Reason #72 to Support Hillary:
Voted YES on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship. (May 2006)

Criticism #72:
The path is not stringent enough.

Reason #73 to Support Hillary:
Voted YES on comprehensive immigration reform. (Jun 2007)

Criticism #73:
It is still amnesty. With no clear nor negotiable solution in sight.

Reason #74 to Support Hillary:
Voted: No salary increase for Congress until minimum wage increased.

Criticism #74:
Salaries are usually based on performance. Thus implying that it takes more skill to be a Congressman that it does to rip ticket stubs. Though, I suppose this could be debated.

Reason #75 to Support Hillary:
Would accept minimum wage as president. (Jul 2007)

Criticism #75:
Well, yippy-doo. Usually those who settle for minimum wage do not have the skills or motivation to achieve anything higher.

Reason #76 to Support Hillary:
Rated 85% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-union voting record.

Criticism #76:
Unions have become a destructive force against corporate operations and small businesses.

Reason #77 to Support Hillary:
Voted NO on repealing Clinton's ergonomic rules on repetitive stress. (Mar 2001)

Criticism #77:
Good luck convincing your boss to buy you a $900 La-Z-Boy desk chair rather than that el-cheapo one from Staples.

Reason #78 to Support Hillary:
Voted YES on increasing minimum wage to $7.25.

Criticism #78:
Increases in the minimum wage inhibit job growth and threaten small businesses.

Reason #79 to Support Hillary:
Voted YES on restricting employer interference in union organizing

Criticism #79:
Unions have become a destructive force against production.

Reason #80 to Support Hillary:
Admits she made mistake in believing in WMDs in Iraq after being mislead by the Bush Administration.

Criticism #80:
The evidence highlighted by the 9/11 Commission Report, The David Kay Report, The CIA & Downing Street all said there were WMDs. Further, upon investigations within Iraq, Coalition Forces soon discovered numerous caches of nerve gas; with shells each capable of killing 20,000.

Reason #81 to Support Hillary:
Reaches out to conservatives but voting record is progressive.

Criticism #81:
Hillary Clinton may reach out to conservatives, but conservatives are afraid to reach back.

Reason #82 to Support Hillary:
"Karl Rove is obsessed with me because I take Republicans on & beat them." (Aug 2007)

Criticism #82:
Maybe so, just not for President of The United States.

Reason #83 to Support Hillary:
Served as a Staff attorney on Watergate/Nixon impeachment investigation.

Criticism #83:
Ironic.

Reason #84 to Support Hillary:
1976: Organized Indiana for Carter-Mondale campaign. She knows what it is like to work on a democrat campaign in RED STATES!

Criticism #84:
I thought she was fighting for diversity?

Reason #85 to Support Hillary:
Rated 100% by the AU, indicating support of church-state separation.

Criticism #85:
Nobody really cares.

Reason #86 to Support Hillary:
Voted NO on confirming John Roberts for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Criticism #86:
John Roberts is perfectly qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice and brings a fresh face to the post of Chief Justice.

Reason #87 to Support Hillary:
Voted NO on confirming Samuel Alito as Supreme Court Justice.

Criticism #87:
Samuel Alito is perfectly qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice.

Reason #88 to Support Hillary:
Rated 100% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record.

Criticism #88:
Issues regarding senior citizens never change, regardless of whomever's seeking the presidency.

Reason #89 to Support Hillary:
Voted YES on increasing tax deductions for college tuition.

Criticism #89:
But has also voted for numerous tax increases.

Reason #90 to Support Hillary:
At Wellesley in 1968, steered college anti-war movement.

Criticism #90:
At Wellesley, Hillary was also called a socialist by her professors.

Reason #91 to Support Hillary:
Recommended by EMILY's List of pro-choice women.

Criticism #91:
Abortion is not a federal issue.

Reason #92 to Support Hillary:
Voted YES on shifting $11B from corporate tax loopholes to education. (Mar 2005)

Criticism #92:
Education receives enough funding as it is, and guess what, it has not gotten any better. And, did Sen. Clinton ever get around to filing taxes for the family charity? This is the 5th time she has "forgotten" to.

Reason # 93 to Support Hillary:
1980s: Led her church to found the largest daycare in Arkansas.

Criticism #93:
Was this as successful as her failed plan for education?

Reason #94 to Support Hillary:
1978: chaired Legal Services Corp. in President Carter's Administration - allowing Poor Families access to legal aid.

Criticism #94:
Once again with the poor.

Reason #95 to Support Hillary:
Voted YES on implementing the 9/11 Commission report to get us out of Iraq in a fast, safe manner.

Criticism #95:
The 9/11 Commission Report highlighted connections between Iraq and terrorism abroad. (See also #100.)

Reason #96 to Support Hillary:
Voted YES on restoring $565M for states' and ports' first responders eliminated by the Bush Administration.

Criticism #96:
These services are still under funded and under supplied.

Reason #97 to Support Hillary:
Worked with Evan Bayh, Al Gore, Bill Clinton and others in the 1980s to rejuvenate the Democratic Party from within.

Criticism #97:
The 1980s was an age of Republican power. And, the only difference between the Democratic Party then, and the DP now, is that it has moved further to the left.

Reason #98 to Support Hillary:
In 1969, she entered law school as "vehicle for social change"

Criticism #98:
This is a metaphor for socialist.

Reason #99 to Support Hillary:
Calls to Increase spending for libraries.

Criticism #99:
This is a state issue.

Reason #100 to Support Hillary:
In October, 2006 - called for "Phased redeployment out of Iraq, beginning immediately."

Criticism #100:
Iraq seems to be the only cause Hillary Clinton is not "fighting" for. The troop surge has benefited troublesome areas within Iraqi neighborhoods; however, such stories are seldom highlighted by the various news outlets. And, I'm no military strategist nor historian, though I do know complete withdrawal and redeployment is not something that can occur all at once.

# # #
 
(a.k. 03.01.08)
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »