It looks more and more like cell phone companies are out to destroy what personal privacy we all have left. This story links to several accounts of how I-Phone calls and texts can be monitored by outsiders:
http://thenextweb.com/apple/2011/12/01/references-to-data-logging-software-carrier-iq-have-been-found-on-apples-ios/
Yet, while this is going on we have several large banks encouraging people to "bank by phone" which means entering in private account and personal information, along with checks and debit card transactions. So if "big brother" and most likely advanced hackers are watching and listening to your every move on your advanced cell phone, how long will you have all of your money and your identity?
Personally, I'm still not planning to use my phone for any transactions.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Monday, November 28, 2011
Malls Want To Track Our Whereabouts?
It seems that certain malls are going as far as to track visitors based on the locations of their cell phones within the mall, even though the shoppers were not aware of this.
To make matters worse, this story about the practice quotes one mall official as saying they will make it "easier to opt out" of this feature. Say what?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/technology/chi-malls-retreat-on-plans-to-track-shoppers-cell-phones-20111128,0,6644526.story
One "excuse" for doing this, according to a quote in the story, is to "make the playing field level with online shoppers". Yikes.
What gets me is that these malls have the time and money to spend in an effort to track, without authorization, the location of its shoppers, instead of putting their resources to better use.
What happened to simply and easily tracking the number of parking spaces in use within the mall's parking lot(s) on an hourly basis throughout the year? To tracking the amount of revenue brought in by each store or business during that same period? We, as consumers, can't stop them from doing that.
Many of the big malls should be using their resources to improve the experience for shoppers who go there, whether during the busy holiday period or any other time.
In much of the country, this time of the year, when malls draw their biggest crowds of the year, is during cold and wet weather times. Yet, few offer indoor or covered parking, and those that do generally suffer from overcrowding, thus leaving the process of parking to be an unpleasant experience.
The majority of shopping malls, including newer ones, continue to make the mistake of not providing easy access for cars to exit. They force drivers to head toward the stores and entrances, creating additional hazzards for pedestrians carrying packages and for the children with them, when these drivers are looking to exit the mall area.
Sure, the argument for doing this is to draw attention to the stores. However, the malls do not understand that doing this is not like grocery stores putting the milk and most commonly bought products in the back or further reaches of a single store.
Many malls fail to have enough directories, especially near the various entrances. Instead of tracking the cell phone whereabouts of patrons, perhaps helping them find the store(s) they are most interested in would be a better priority.
Worse yet, this story claims that major retailers such as J.C. Penney and Home Depot "have considered" using this technology. Whether for the sake of this story angle or as a matter of fact, each company seemed as if they are not ready to use this yet. The fact that it is a possibility is alarming. Suppose information that you are, at this moment, in the Home Depot by the home security devices, got into the wrong hands.
The Frustrated Consumer has an idea for the short term. Let's all turn off our cell phones just before we walk into a mall. With no data to show for their time and efforts, just maybe the malls and major retailers would consider checking inventory reports to see what sold and when. Not who bought them.
To make matters worse, this story about the practice quotes one mall official as saying they will make it "easier to opt out" of this feature. Say what?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/technology/chi-malls-retreat-on-plans-to-track-shoppers-cell-phones-20111128,0,6644526.story
One "excuse" for doing this, according to a quote in the story, is to "make the playing field level with online shoppers". Yikes.
What gets me is that these malls have the time and money to spend in an effort to track, without authorization, the location of its shoppers, instead of putting their resources to better use.
What happened to simply and easily tracking the number of parking spaces in use within the mall's parking lot(s) on an hourly basis throughout the year? To tracking the amount of revenue brought in by each store or business during that same period? We, as consumers, can't stop them from doing that.
Many of the big malls should be using their resources to improve the experience for shoppers who go there, whether during the busy holiday period or any other time.
In much of the country, this time of the year, when malls draw their biggest crowds of the year, is during cold and wet weather times. Yet, few offer indoor or covered parking, and those that do generally suffer from overcrowding, thus leaving the process of parking to be an unpleasant experience.
The majority of shopping malls, including newer ones, continue to make the mistake of not providing easy access for cars to exit. They force drivers to head toward the stores and entrances, creating additional hazzards for pedestrians carrying packages and for the children with them, when these drivers are looking to exit the mall area.
Sure, the argument for doing this is to draw attention to the stores. However, the malls do not understand that doing this is not like grocery stores putting the milk and most commonly bought products in the back or further reaches of a single store.
Many malls fail to have enough directories, especially near the various entrances. Instead of tracking the cell phone whereabouts of patrons, perhaps helping them find the store(s) they are most interested in would be a better priority.
Worse yet, this story claims that major retailers such as J.C. Penney and Home Depot "have considered" using this technology. Whether for the sake of this story angle or as a matter of fact, each company seemed as if they are not ready to use this yet. The fact that it is a possibility is alarming. Suppose information that you are, at this moment, in the Home Depot by the home security devices, got into the wrong hands.
The Frustrated Consumer has an idea for the short term. Let's all turn off our cell phones just before we walk into a mall. With no data to show for their time and efforts, just maybe the malls and major retailers would consider checking inventory reports to see what sold and when. Not who bought them.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Wrong Way Information
Shouldn't businesses spend more of their behind-the-scenes time and effort on improving relations with current and potential customers? And less on how they can benefit by sharing our personal information?
Two unrelated incidents this week bring this to mind. Recent researched from Stanford University shows how a lot of major companies are equipped to share our information without us knowing it (until now).
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/6740
Granted, the report profiled in the link above is very technical. But even the basic parts of the article, such as showing how logging in to the Wall Street Journal web site (without using the true password) sent the user's e-mail address to 7 outside companies, tell us a lot of what is going on these days.
The other incident was having a question for a large company, only to go on to their web site, and not find any way to ask anyone or contact them easily.
This has me starting to check the web sites I use or would use to make a purchase or execute some sort of financial transaction. If I have a question before I purchase, I should be able to easily contact someone from that company, even if by a link to an e-mail, to get an answer.
Maybe I need to have better faith in businesses these days. After reading the above-linked research, I am instead worried that if it were as easy as it should be to contact them online, they would be selling my information to others before responding to my query.
The above-linked article goes on to show how Home Depot, NBC, and other companies are sending our user names and other information to other companies even though their privacy statements show otherwise.
There needs to be a better way for consumers to GET information from these companies instead of giving it.
Two unrelated incidents this week bring this to mind. Recent researched from Stanford University shows how a lot of major companies are equipped to share our information without us knowing it (until now).
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/6740
Granted, the report profiled in the link above is very technical. But even the basic parts of the article, such as showing how logging in to the Wall Street Journal web site (without using the true password) sent the user's e-mail address to 7 outside companies, tell us a lot of what is going on these days.
The other incident was having a question for a large company, only to go on to their web site, and not find any way to ask anyone or contact them easily.
This has me starting to check the web sites I use or would use to make a purchase or execute some sort of financial transaction. If I have a question before I purchase, I should be able to easily contact someone from that company, even if by a link to an e-mail, to get an answer.
Maybe I need to have better faith in businesses these days. After reading the above-linked research, I am instead worried that if it were as easy as it should be to contact them online, they would be selling my information to others before responding to my query.
The above-linked article goes on to show how Home Depot, NBC, and other companies are sending our user names and other information to other companies even though their privacy statements show otherwise.
There needs to be a better way for consumers to GET information from these companies instead of giving it.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
A Restaurant Round-Up?
Thanks to reporter Darren Rovell, whom I follow on Twitter, we have documentation of this practice by a Denver restaurant:
http://twitpic.com/64cbg8
Of course, I replied to him hoping he "rounded down" when it came to a tip.
But, c'mon with this. This ranks right there with restaurants that add a 15% or higher "service fee" for groups. I have canceled reservations over that bit. Or, on the couple of occasions I have been a part of finding this out when the group bill comes, that amount replaces any tip.
Yet, even replacing the tip can still be a ripoff. Maybe the service wasn't good enough to justify the percentage tacked on.
And, I point out that a professional restaurant should have enough experience and expertise to time 8 meals (or however many) to all be ready at the same time. And how they should be glad that a group of that size could all agree on eating there.
One of the times I pointed that out to a restaurant manager he appeared to be offended. So I pointed out that, if anything, they should DISCOUNT that percentage for large groups who eat there. "And if you consider that to be too hefty of a discount, how do justify sticking all of us with that same cost?"
http://twitpic.com/64cbg8
Of course, I replied to him hoping he "rounded down" when it came to a tip.
But, c'mon with this. This ranks right there with restaurants that add a 15% or higher "service fee" for groups. I have canceled reservations over that bit. Or, on the couple of occasions I have been a part of finding this out when the group bill comes, that amount replaces any tip.
Yet, even replacing the tip can still be a ripoff. Maybe the service wasn't good enough to justify the percentage tacked on.
And, I point out that a professional restaurant should have enough experience and expertise to time 8 meals (or however many) to all be ready at the same time. And how they should be glad that a group of that size could all agree on eating there.
One of the times I pointed that out to a restaurant manager he appeared to be offended. So I pointed out that, if anything, they should DISCOUNT that percentage for large groups who eat there. "And if you consider that to be too hefty of a discount, how do justify sticking all of us with that same cost?"
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Why We're Really Cutting The Cable
I found today's news story about how cable and satellite subscriptions are dropping to be quite interesting, but mainly for the reasons which are given. It's not all because of the economy.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-record-numbers-cancelling-cable-satellite-tv-service-20110810,0,5039580.story
Maybe, just maybe, this will give the cable and satellite providers and the TV stations and networks the long overdue wake up call that has been needed. After all, canceling seems to be the only way that consumers can be heard on this issue.
I'm here to tell you that it's not just the economy as much as it is the quality, or lack thereof. And there is a lot of blame to go around.
The cable and satellite companies need to realize that they are in business to provide us with a service. That service is to install and/or provide the facilities through which we watch the programming, whether via a dish or installed wiring. Once installed, these facilities need to be maintained and services, and upgraded as needed.
For some reason, the cable and satellite companies were given the right to determine what programming we can get and not get. That flat out stinks. Some of the companies providing these TV facilities also provide phone service. Yet, when I get their phone service, I can call into any area code I so choose with a plan that covers the level of service I seek. There are no restricted area codes and none that cost extra.
Yet, with TV, I am forced to pay for channels I don't want and won't watch. And I don't get all of the stations or networks I would like to watch. Why are there restrictions for TV that aren't there for the same company's phone service?
The cable/satellite companies tell me that the majority of these exhorbitant monthly fees I'm paying go to pay for programming on the channels I am getting, some of which are available on a tiered basis at a higher price option. I could live with that, but under one condition. I should decide which channels I'm paying specifically for each month.
Instead, I'm stuck literally paying for channels broadcasting in languages I don't speak, supporting religions I do not practice, and for programming I would never watch. I'm certainly not suggesting that any channel I'm not interested in should go away. Let them prosper. But let the people who want them support them.
My cable or satellite provider should exist to bring me only those channels I want them to send me. Period.
Those of you who are not sports fans should be outraged that ESPN's channels take the biggest chunk of your cable/satellite bill each month. And you're not watching.
However, the cable/satellite providers are not the only ones to blame. The stations and networks programming these channels could stand some improvement as well. It seems that many channels no longer do what they initially set out to do and consumers are stuck paying for something different.
MTV and VH1 were all about music. Now they have more "original" programming which has nothing to do with music than ever before. That's not what we were initially told, and I should be able to send them a message by dropping them.
TVLand was supposed to be "classic TV all the time". Now, they continue to show "original" shows and movies in prime time and on weekends instead of the reruns of true classic shows. I barely watch it now after constant viewing years ago. I should be able to send them a message by dropping them.
ESPN Classic was implemented to show true classic sporting events. During its first few years, they provided an outstanding lineup heavy on older baseball, football, and basketball games of note, taken from the original telecasts. Have you checked them out lately? It seems to be mostly crap such as poker. I should be able to send them a message by dropping them because they also severely reduced the quality of programming from what it first was.
CNN Headline News provided continuous 30 minute updated newscasts 24 hours a day for years. Now, they show more talk and interview shows, recycling them several times a day, than they spend giving current news headlines. I should be able to send them a message by dropping them because they no longer constantly do what they used to either.
What about the BIO channel? Created because of all the great A & E Biography shows from over the years. Try going through their current schedule for a 24 hour period and see if you find a day with more than 33% of their programming being actual "Biography" shows. That's not what got them started.
I could go on. Chances are you have thought of some other channels which have come to disappoint you and have been taken out of your "favorites" button on the remote.
My point is that many of the TV station and network programmers have let consumers down. They have gone away from what made them, reduced the quality, and become less appealing to viewers.
How dare they force us to pay to continue to receive them? These were supposed to be "advertiser supported" channels. If they want consumers to support them, they need to either listen to what their paying customers really want, or not require us to paying for what we don't want. And if they don't receive enough revenue to support operation, then let them go away. These channels should not be my problem.
Instead, consumers often suffer by not having choices. Within the past year, NFL Network has come to Charter Cable, and MLB Network has come to AT&T U-Verse. Both companies made a big deal about now having these. What a bunch of crap!
We the people should have been able to get these channels, if we want them, via whatever cable or satellite provider we are paying each month.
Now, let's get back to today's news. Record numbers of consumers are getting rid of cable and satellite. Sure, some of it is the economy. But let's tell the stations and networks, and the cable and satellite companies, that we are sending a message.
We want to choose what we watch, and demand the right to do so.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-record-numbers-cancelling-cable-satellite-tv-service-20110810,0,5039580.story
Maybe, just maybe, this will give the cable and satellite providers and the TV stations and networks the long overdue wake up call that has been needed. After all, canceling seems to be the only way that consumers can be heard on this issue.
I'm here to tell you that it's not just the economy as much as it is the quality, or lack thereof. And there is a lot of blame to go around.
The cable and satellite companies need to realize that they are in business to provide us with a service. That service is to install and/or provide the facilities through which we watch the programming, whether via a dish or installed wiring. Once installed, these facilities need to be maintained and services, and upgraded as needed.
For some reason, the cable and satellite companies were given the right to determine what programming we can get and not get. That flat out stinks. Some of the companies providing these TV facilities also provide phone service. Yet, when I get their phone service, I can call into any area code I so choose with a plan that covers the level of service I seek. There are no restricted area codes and none that cost extra.
Yet, with TV, I am forced to pay for channels I don't want and won't watch. And I don't get all of the stations or networks I would like to watch. Why are there restrictions for TV that aren't there for the same company's phone service?
The cable/satellite companies tell me that the majority of these exhorbitant monthly fees I'm paying go to pay for programming on the channels I am getting, some of which are available on a tiered basis at a higher price option. I could live with that, but under one condition. I should decide which channels I'm paying specifically for each month.
Instead, I'm stuck literally paying for channels broadcasting in languages I don't speak, supporting religions I do not practice, and for programming I would never watch. I'm certainly not suggesting that any channel I'm not interested in should go away. Let them prosper. But let the people who want them support them.
My cable or satellite provider should exist to bring me only those channels I want them to send me. Period.
Those of you who are not sports fans should be outraged that ESPN's channels take the biggest chunk of your cable/satellite bill each month. And you're not watching.
However, the cable/satellite providers are not the only ones to blame. The stations and networks programming these channels could stand some improvement as well. It seems that many channels no longer do what they initially set out to do and consumers are stuck paying for something different.
MTV and VH1 were all about music. Now they have more "original" programming which has nothing to do with music than ever before. That's not what we were initially told, and I should be able to send them a message by dropping them.
TVLand was supposed to be "classic TV all the time". Now, they continue to show "original" shows and movies in prime time and on weekends instead of the reruns of true classic shows. I barely watch it now after constant viewing years ago. I should be able to send them a message by dropping them.
ESPN Classic was implemented to show true classic sporting events. During its first few years, they provided an outstanding lineup heavy on older baseball, football, and basketball games of note, taken from the original telecasts. Have you checked them out lately? It seems to be mostly crap such as poker. I should be able to send them a message by dropping them because they also severely reduced the quality of programming from what it first was.
CNN Headline News provided continuous 30 minute updated newscasts 24 hours a day for years. Now, they show more talk and interview shows, recycling them several times a day, than they spend giving current news headlines. I should be able to send them a message by dropping them because they no longer constantly do what they used to either.
What about the BIO channel? Created because of all the great A & E Biography shows from over the years. Try going through their current schedule for a 24 hour period and see if you find a day with more than 33% of their programming being actual "Biography" shows. That's not what got them started.
I could go on. Chances are you have thought of some other channels which have come to disappoint you and have been taken out of your "favorites" button on the remote.
My point is that many of the TV station and network programmers have let consumers down. They have gone away from what made them, reduced the quality, and become less appealing to viewers.
How dare they force us to pay to continue to receive them? These were supposed to be "advertiser supported" channels. If they want consumers to support them, they need to either listen to what their paying customers really want, or not require us to paying for what we don't want. And if they don't receive enough revenue to support operation, then let them go away. These channels should not be my problem.
Instead, consumers often suffer by not having choices. Within the past year, NFL Network has come to Charter Cable, and MLB Network has come to AT&T U-Verse. Both companies made a big deal about now having these. What a bunch of crap!
We the people should have been able to get these channels, if we want them, via whatever cable or satellite provider we are paying each month.
Now, let's get back to today's news. Record numbers of consumers are getting rid of cable and satellite. Sure, some of it is the economy. But let's tell the stations and networks, and the cable and satellite companies, that we are sending a message.
We want to choose what we watch, and demand the right to do so.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Looking Beyond Borders - book it !
Now Borders is closing its remaining stores around the country and is about to ride off into the sunset. This should be a, pun intended, textbook example of why some big businesses fail. I’m not buying their “excuse” for leaving the marketplace. Then again, fewer people were buying anything that Borders has been offering lately.
Their closing up shop is more of a result of consumers acceptance of ‘big business policy’ than e readers and the rest of the excuses some PR people have put out there as if to justify this closing. What is unfortunate is that so many very capable employees have and will lose full and part-time positions doing what they love because of goofy policies. Over the years, I always found the Borders employees to be knowledgeable about the books no matter what the topic. That’s the one thing the company did right, across the board, over the years. Employees with knowledge of the product. Management seems to have been a different story, however.
An employee can know and love certain books and talk about them all day with eager customers. But if that employee can’t deliver the product, the consumer still suffers.
There was the time a new DVD came out that I wanted. Out of convenience, I went into a Borders store the morning of the release date. Didn’t find it on the shelves. I asked the Customer Service rep, who knew what I was talking about and looked it up for me. They didn’t have it “yet”. I said something like “thanks anyway, I’ll pick it up down the street later in the day”. The rep looked offended and said that she would order it for me. I said that I would get it somewhere else that same day, which I did, and for a couple dollars less.
A few months ago, I went into 2 different Borders seeking a new release book which wound up on the N Y Times best seller list. One store didn’t have it yet. The other showed it as “in store” on the lookup computer. Couldn’t find it. When I asked, the rep looked it up, then agreed that it’s “in store”, and went to check on this for me. She then came back and said that the book is in the store, but still boxed up in the back and that they wouldn’t have it on display until tomorrow. As if I would come back for it.
Not only are the more incidents like the above, there is also the checkout process. Granted, Borders wasn’t as crazed as Radio Shack in terms of “needing” your information to make a simple purchase, but they came close at times. I shouldn’t have had to give my phone number or e-mail address just to buy a magazine. When they had the most current one in stock.
Over the past couple of years, I found more and more instances of them not having items in stock, but you could order them via Borders.com. However, I, the customer who couldn’t find the item in their store, was asked to pay the shipping charges, which took away any discount.
Forward ahead to the past couple of years and their Borders online “membership” plan. The one where they e-mail you every day with some discount possibilities for which you had jump through hoops and still not always get your buy. You had to keep checking back during the course of the day to see how many people “registered” for their daily specials which would “open” when a certain number of members had done so.
Then, I actually got one of them, which wasn’t easy. Their discount turned out to be, in part, via something called WOW Points which turn into cash. In order to get cash back, Borders wanted my personal checking account information to transfer the funds, failing to leave me any other option to get the money. Ya, right. Like I’m going to give some retailer the information to access my personal checking account?
That one kills me. In this day and age of identity theft and personal information leaks, Borders expects us to blurt out our phone number or e-mail address to make a simple purchase, and to provide them with our personal account information to take advantage of a special discount.
All they needed was some capable management and a sense of what potential customers want in terms of convenience and price. They would still have over 1,000 stores in operation.
Like the little kid who spills his drink and yells “It’s not my fault”, Borders is blaming the e-books and the current marketplace for reading. Heck, a little kid would know to have merchandise ready on the shelf the morning it is released – and easily available at other retailers.
One can only hope that other retailers will see the real reason for the Borders decline and keep in mind what current and potential customers really want.
Their closing up shop is more of a result of consumers acceptance of ‘big business policy’ than e readers and the rest of the excuses some PR people have put out there as if to justify this closing. What is unfortunate is that so many very capable employees have and will lose full and part-time positions doing what they love because of goofy policies. Over the years, I always found the Borders employees to be knowledgeable about the books no matter what the topic. That’s the one thing the company did right, across the board, over the years. Employees with knowledge of the product. Management seems to have been a different story, however.
An employee can know and love certain books and talk about them all day with eager customers. But if that employee can’t deliver the product, the consumer still suffers.
There was the time a new DVD came out that I wanted. Out of convenience, I went into a Borders store the morning of the release date. Didn’t find it on the shelves. I asked the Customer Service rep, who knew what I was talking about and looked it up for me. They didn’t have it “yet”. I said something like “thanks anyway, I’ll pick it up down the street later in the day”. The rep looked offended and said that she would order it for me. I said that I would get it somewhere else that same day, which I did, and for a couple dollars less.
A few months ago, I went into 2 different Borders seeking a new release book which wound up on the N Y Times best seller list. One store didn’t have it yet. The other showed it as “in store” on the lookup computer. Couldn’t find it. When I asked, the rep looked it up, then agreed that it’s “in store”, and went to check on this for me. She then came back and said that the book is in the store, but still boxed up in the back and that they wouldn’t have it on display until tomorrow. As if I would come back for it.
Not only are the more incidents like the above, there is also the checkout process. Granted, Borders wasn’t as crazed as Radio Shack in terms of “needing” your information to make a simple purchase, but they came close at times. I shouldn’t have had to give my phone number or e-mail address just to buy a magazine. When they had the most current one in stock.
Over the past couple of years, I found more and more instances of them not having items in stock, but you could order them via Borders.com. However, I, the customer who couldn’t find the item in their store, was asked to pay the shipping charges, which took away any discount.
Forward ahead to the past couple of years and their Borders online “membership” plan. The one where they e-mail you every day with some discount possibilities for which you had jump through hoops and still not always get your buy. You had to keep checking back during the course of the day to see how many people “registered” for their daily specials which would “open” when a certain number of members had done so.
Then, I actually got one of them, which wasn’t easy. Their discount turned out to be, in part, via something called WOW Points which turn into cash. In order to get cash back, Borders wanted my personal checking account information to transfer the funds, failing to leave me any other option to get the money. Ya, right. Like I’m going to give some retailer the information to access my personal checking account?
That one kills me. In this day and age of identity theft and personal information leaks, Borders expects us to blurt out our phone number or e-mail address to make a simple purchase, and to provide them with our personal account information to take advantage of a special discount.
All they needed was some capable management and a sense of what potential customers want in terms of convenience and price. They would still have over 1,000 stores in operation.
Like the little kid who spills his drink and yells “It’s not my fault”, Borders is blaming the e-books and the current marketplace for reading. Heck, a little kid would know to have merchandise ready on the shelf the morning it is released – and easily available at other retailers.
One can only hope that other retailers will see the real reason for the Borders decline and keep in mind what current and potential customers really want.
Friday, June 10, 2011
Improve The Local Political Focus
In the interest of trying to wake up our local politicians, I offer my personal response up to the general public.
Incredibly, Illinois Congressman Mark Kirk, whose e-mail list I'm on for reasons I don't know, e-mailed me and countless others looking for "input". However, the matter he seeks input on has nothing to do with his local territory.
This time, rather than ignore and delete as usual with political e-mails, I responded. This is the sort of response that should be e-mailed and forwarded to groups of people you know in hopes others will do the same.
First, the primary content I received from Kirk, reprinted without permission:
Dear Friend:
This week marks the 44th anniversary of the 1967 Six Day War. Before the war, Israel's future hung in the balance. After it, Israel began to plan for a more long-term secure future as a pro-western democracy allied to the United States.
Recently, Washington was confronted with a new debate. After backing Israel's security needs for decades, the Administration called on Israel to fall back to its pre-1967 lines "with swaps" with the Palestinian Authority. This happened in the same month that the Palestinian Fatah leaders announced a coalition government with Hamas, a terrorist organization. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu disagreed and said we should not sacrifice Israel's security in the creation of a new Palestinian state.
I would like to hear from you on this issue.
I strongly believe that we should support the security of our Israeli allies first. You can read more on my views after the jump.
Please feel free to call me at (312) 886-3506 or contact me online at kirk.senate.gov if you have any questions or concerns about issues before the Congress.
It is an honor to serve you and your family in the Senate.
Very Truly Yours,
Mark Kirk
U.S. Senate
Next, my response, which, again, you are welcome to use in response to political e-mails you get stuck with:
Mr. Kirk,
Thanks for the information you provided.
However, I don't see how an international matter with no specific day-to-day impact on us citizens within your service area can be considered anything close to a priority for you at this time. That would explain why you are looking for input about this. It's because those who voted for you are, justifiably, concerned with things you can realistically help to control.
The only international matter you and your colleagues should be focused on is reducing the dependence of foreign oil. The people who voted for you, and who will be asked to do so again, continue to be gouged at the gas pump and now paying more than double what they should for every gallon. The impact is such that local businesses are closing, moving out of state, or forced to raise their prices to us.
Meanwhile, the government you represent wasted millions of our dollars to bail out the banks due to the real estate crisis they created. Just yesterday, three more major banks were reprimanded over their failure to assist shattered homeowners. And I am personally among those, who you will be asking to vote for you, who is stuck owning a house now worth well under the mortgage I'm am still paying on it, with no immediate hope of being able to move or purchase any property.
Now, I see how you and your government colleagues are "looking for input" on a matter that is thousands of miles away.
Unless you expect the people of Israel to help you get re-elected, I'd suggest you focus your efforts close to home.
Dave Kohl
Illinois Voter
Incredibly, Illinois Congressman Mark Kirk, whose e-mail list I'm on for reasons I don't know, e-mailed me and countless others looking for "input". However, the matter he seeks input on has nothing to do with his local territory.
This time, rather than ignore and delete as usual with political e-mails, I responded. This is the sort of response that should be e-mailed and forwarded to groups of people you know in hopes others will do the same.
First, the primary content I received from Kirk, reprinted without permission:
Dear Friend:
This week marks the 44th anniversary of the 1967 Six Day War. Before the war, Israel's future hung in the balance. After it, Israel began to plan for a more long-term secure future as a pro-western democracy allied to the United States.
Recently, Washington was confronted with a new debate. After backing Israel's security needs for decades, the Administration called on Israel to fall back to its pre-1967 lines "with swaps" with the Palestinian Authority. This happened in the same month that the Palestinian Fatah leaders announced a coalition government with Hamas, a terrorist organization. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu disagreed and said we should not sacrifice Israel's security in the creation of a new Palestinian state.
I would like to hear from you on this issue.
I strongly believe that we should support the security of our Israeli allies first. You can read more on my views after the jump.
Please feel free to call me at (312) 886-3506 or contact me online at kirk.senate.gov if you have any questions or concerns about issues before the Congress.
It is an honor to serve you and your family in the Senate.
Very Truly Yours,
Mark Kirk
U.S. Senate
Next, my response, which, again, you are welcome to use in response to political e-mails you get stuck with:
Mr. Kirk,
Thanks for the information you provided.
However, I don't see how an international matter with no specific day-to-day impact on us citizens within your service area can be considered anything close to a priority for you at this time. That would explain why you are looking for input about this. It's because those who voted for you are, justifiably, concerned with things you can realistically help to control.
The only international matter you and your colleagues should be focused on is reducing the dependence of foreign oil. The people who voted for you, and who will be asked to do so again, continue to be gouged at the gas pump and now paying more than double what they should for every gallon. The impact is such that local businesses are closing, moving out of state, or forced to raise their prices to us.
Meanwhile, the government you represent wasted millions of our dollars to bail out the banks due to the real estate crisis they created. Just yesterday, three more major banks were reprimanded over their failure to assist shattered homeowners. And I am personally among those, who you will be asking to vote for you, who is stuck owning a house now worth well under the mortgage I'm am still paying on it, with no immediate hope of being able to move or purchase any property.
Now, I see how you and your government colleagues are "looking for input" on a matter that is thousands of miles away.
Unless you expect the people of Israel to help you get re-elected, I'd suggest you focus your efforts close to home.
Dave Kohl
Illinois Voter
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)