Letter from The White House:

(Reproduced here verbatim and in its entirety, just left out my address.  Comments in [braces]):

-----     SNIP     -----

April 24, 2013 [got it today the 29th - I guess that's not bad for coast-to-coast First Class Post these days...]

Dear Jon: [I haven't given him leave to call me by my first name - state legislators understand this.  Also, a business letter has the salutation closed with a semicolon, not a colon - using my given name makes it a personal letter, so a comma would be used.  Either way, it's wrong.)

  Thank you for taking the time to write.  [I actually did not - it was another generated letter to start the exchange.]  I have heard from many American regarding firearms policy and gun violence in our Nation, and I appreciate your perspective.  From Aurora to Newtown to the streets of Chicago, we have seen the devastating effects gun violence has on our American family.  I join countless others in grieving for all those whose lives have been taken too soon by gun violence.

  Like the majority of Americans, I believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms.  [Really, Mr. President?  I somehow doubt that...]  In this country, we have a strong tradition of gun ownership that has been handed down from generation to generation.  Hunting and sport shooting are part of our national heritage.  [As is ownership of firearms for self-defense.  I note you left that out?  The Japanese refused to invade us in WWII because they KNEW we'd hand their asses to them!]  Yet, even as we acknowledge that almost all gun owners in America are responsible, ["responsible" how - or for what - Mr. President?] when we look at the devastation caused by gun violence - whether in high-profile tragedies [God, I HATE the misappropriation of this word!] or the daily heartbreak that plagues our cities - we must ask ourselves whether we are doing enough.

  While reducing gun violence is a complicated challenge, protecting our children from harm should not be a divisive one.  Most gun owners agree that we can respect the Second Amendment while keeping an irresponsible, law-breaking few from inflicting harm on a massive scale.  [I am somehow inclined to doubt your assessment here, Mr. President.]  Most also agree that if we took commonsense steps to curtail gun violence, there would be fewer atrocities [more appropriate than "tragedies" - thank you for that] like the one that occurred in Newtown.  We will not be able to stop every violent act, but if there is even one thing we can do to reduce gun violence - if even one life can be saved [this is yet another mantra that I'm sick to my teeth of hearing!] - then we have an obligation to try.

  That is why I asked Vice President Joe Biden to identify concrete steps we can take to keep our children safe, help prevent mass shootings, and reduce the broader epidemic of gun violence in this country.  He met with over 200 groups representing a broad cross-section of Americans and heard their best ideas.  I have put forward a specific set of proposals based off of his efforts, and in the days ahead, I intend to use whatever weight this office holds to make them a reality.  [Yeah - over 200 groups.  Violence Policy Center, Brady Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, ...  I find it particularly interesting to note that the Brady Center is intended to prevent HANDGUN violence - but Jim Brady was shot with a RIFLE...]

  My plan gives law enforcement, schools, mental health professionals, and the public health community some of the tools they need to reduce gun violence.  These tools include strengthening of the background check system [how's this going to work against people who STEAL guns for their acts?] helping schools hire more resource officers and counselors and develop emergency preparedness plans, and ensuring mental health professionals known their options for reporting threats of violence.  And I direct the Centers for Disease Control to study the best ways to reduce gun violence - because it is critical that we understand the science behind this public health crisis.  [oh - mass shootings are a "disease" now?  How's that work?  Is it viral?  Bacteriological?  Fungal?  Prions?]  From improving mental health services [essential, but let's not get Draconian about it] to looking more closely at a culture that too often glorifies violence [true - but this has to be addressed in both popular entertainment AND newsmedia!] we must leave no stone unturned when working to keep Americans safe.

  As important as these steps are, they are not a substitute for action from Congress [I think Congress has done enough, thank you.]  To make a real and lasting difference, members of Congress must also act.  As part of my comprehensive plan, I have called on them to pass some specific proposals right away.  First, it is time to require a universal background check for anyone trying to buy a gun.  [But what about anyone trying to STEAL a gun?]  Second, Congress should renew the 10-round limit on magazines and reinstate and strengthen the assault weapons ban [10rd mags?  Pointless.  "Assault weapons" ban?  Make sure you know what you're talking about, first.  I should write a primer...]  We should get tougher on those why buy guns with the purpose of selling them to criminals, and we should impose serious punishments on anyone who helps them do this [already illegal Federally and probably in all 50 states - cf: "straw man purchases."]

  These are reasonable, commonsense measures that have the support of the majority of the American people [again, I somehow doubt your proportion.]  But change will not come unless the American people demand it from their lawmakers.  Now is the time to do the right thing for our children, out communities, and the country we love.  We owe the victims of heartbreaking national tragedies [here we go again!] and the countless unheralded tragedies [STOP THAT!] each year nothing less than our best effort - to seek consensus in order to save lives and ensure a brighter future for our children.

  Thank you, again, for writing.  I encourage you to visit www.WhiteHouse.gov/NowIsTheTime to learn more about my Administration's approach.

Sincerely,
(signed) Barack Obama

-----     SNIP     -----

Oh, I'm going to have to work on this one as well - and dig up some relevant sections of Federal law.  Gimme a bit...

I'm not sure I want to check the link cited, but I really should.  I'll probably find more holes to correct...

The part I can't figure out?  If this is supposed to prevent CRIMINALS getting hold of guns, why does it make it more difficult for people WITH NO CRIMINAL INTENT to get them?

Public safety my ass.  "Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining - I'm not as stupid as you want me to be."

Any ideas, Dear Reader? 

Nothing has quite the persistence...

Of a wrongheaded notion.  I refer you to CA SB622, which is taxation of sugar-sweetened beverages.  Apparently, it's moving forward - there's the response I got to a form mailing to State Senator Jim Beall (CA-15):

-----     SNIP     -----

Mr. Kelley,

Thank you for contacting me regarding your opposition to Senate Bill 622, Taxation: Sweetened Beverage Tax: Children's Health Promotion Fund.  I want to take this opportunity to apprise you of the latest action taken by the California State Senate.

I supported Senate Bill 622 when it came before me in the Senate Government and Finance Committee. SB 622 did receive enough votes to pass out of this Committee and is currently pending before the Senate Health Committee, of which I am also a member.

While we may not agree on SB 622, I appreciate your input and hope you will keep me informed of your views on this and other legislative issues of concern to you.

If you are looking for information including the text of bills, analyses of legislation, or my voting history, I encourage you to explore the Legislative Counsel's website at www.leginfo.ca.gov.  This site is extremely helpful and is available free of charge.

To receive updates on bills throughout this session and sign up for my monthly newsletter visit: www.senate.ca.gov/beall

Best regards,

Jim Beall
Senator, District 15

-----     SNIP     -----

  Oy.  And just how is this tax (eve if it's only currently set to one cent per fluid ounce - but it's not like THAT is set in stone...) supposed to help to "change behaviour" or "promote health?"  I've got other ideas:

- Stop using "high fructose corn syrup" as a sweetener - it causes more trouble than cane sugar.  Go back to sugar - I happily pay a bit extra for Pepsi Throwback because IT TASTES BETTER (and it reminds me of some of the more pleasant times in my childhood.)

- Stop using aspartame as an artificial sweetener for diet drinks.  First-stage metabolite of aspartame?  Formaldehyde.  Remember getting pickled frogs to dissect in HS bio, if you're old enough?  Yeah - they were pickled in formaldehyde.  Dead people have their blood replaced with formaldehyde ("embalming fluid") so they still look good for open-casket a couple of DAYS later (yeah, they're also kept in a fridge - but that won't preserve any sort of look.)  You expect me to believe that drinking something that turns into FORMALDEHYDE is healthier for me?  At least sugar/HFCS can be burned off by activity - if someone slips me a diet drink, the pain in my head (acute rapid-onset formaldehyde poisoning) makes me not want to do ANYTHING.  Especially if it's daylight outside - makes me photophobic (instead of simply nocturnal.)  Last time someone slipped me a diet soda, I ended up in our spare room with all the lights turned off, wibbling to myself for about three hours.  From TWO OUNCES.

Yeah.  I wanna drink diet drinks.  I just don't know if I want to do it BEFORE or AFTER I loan my head out as an anvil to a large, energetic blacksmith for a 14-hour day...

- Taxes haven't changed behaviours.  People still smoke, no?  I quit when Luckies hit two bucks a pack out here - smokes in general are up around five, and they still move.  Yeah.  THAT worked.

- Prohibition don't work worth a shit either - haven't we learned the lesson of Amendment XVIII and Amendment XXI?  All that did was firmly entrench the underground criminal economy and stick us with NFA34 and (eventually) BATF - had to give all those "revenooers" something to do - couldn't just make 'em go do something productive for a living, right?  So, even if a prohibition gets lifted, we're still likely to be worse off than we were before.

- Some of us actually drink cola drinks to self-medicate.  Making the amount of coffee I'd need daily is a pain (although I do supplement my Pepsi with strong coffee.)  Why?  I've had a headache for the last six years (Post-Traumatic Headache of Unknown Etiology,) and it makes the migraine I had back about 1994 look like a mild irritant.  My neurologist told me that she was trying migraine meds on me because PTHAs respond in similar ways to migraine HAs.  Mine?  It responds to caffeine (normally) and nicotine (when it gets bad - but I have a cigar, so that may be a psychosomatic effect.  When I have a good cigar, I tend to relax.)  The amount of caffeine I need to keep my headache under control probably approaches LD50 on most days - drinking enough diet cola for that will make me dig my brain out with a spoon (it takes far less formaldehyde to make my head hurt WORSE than caffeine to make it hurt LESS.)

My response to Senator Beall will take a couple of days, I need to formulate a reply.  Any suggestions?

Well, at least she was on topic...

Dear Mr. Kelley:

 

Thank you for contacting me with your support for H.R. 35, the Safe Schools Act. I appreciate that you took the time to share your thoughts with me. 

 

I support the constitutional right of citizens to bear arms. While I understand the desire to take all steps possible to keep our schools safe, I have many concerns about the unintended consequences that could arise from having armed personnel in our schools. H.R. 35 has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee. As a senior member of this committee, I will be sure to keep your comments in mind if this bill is brought before the full committee for debate. 

 

Although we may not agree on this issue, I encourage you to contact me about other issues that interest you. Again, thanks for being in touch. 

 

Sincerely

Zoe Lofgren

Member of Congress 

-----     SNIP     -----

No, we're not likely to EVER agree on this issue - after all Rep. Lofgren is a Democrat (as is nearly every other "elected" California official.  No, I'm not a Republican - I'm NPA, somewhere off to the Right of the Libertarians.  Can't help it - the purpose of the government is to punish transgressions of social order and against people, but the powers of government MUST be limited to favour the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, save where such rights are used to harm another.  NO-ONE has the "right" to harm another - and I can accept this.  However, if you believe you have a misplaced right to harm me - or another anywhere near me, don't think I'm not going to use whatever force is necessary to stop you.   Stop taking away the tools I need to defend myself or others!)

Anyhow, my response to Rep. Lofgren -

-----     SNIP     -----

Representative Lofgren -
  Thank you for getting back to me WRT HR35 - "The Safe Schools Act." 
  While we obviously disagree on the methods, I'm sure we agree on the desired result - a decrease in violent acts perpetrated by miscreants.
  However, I think we can also agree, upon examination of historical evidence, that disarming the populace at large WILL NOT WORK.  It hasn't yet - one need only refer to Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, or New York City to see that this is so.
  Einstein once popularly defined "insanity" as "doing the same thing the same way, over and over again, yet expecting a different result."
  Every time something else like this happens, we get the reflexive "we need more laws!" response.  If the laws we had in place didn't work, how will MORE be of any help?
  And, why does any firearms control proposal we see coming down target the otherwise law-abiding, seeking to make criminals out of people with NO CRIMINAL INTENT whatever?  They - we - are not the problem.
  Moreover, it has been borne out in law throughout the history of the United States that the State has NO duty WHATEVER to protect the individual.  This is a principle found in English Common Law (upon which much of our early law was based,) to the creation of the office of "Sheriff" about 600 years ago - the original duty of the Sheriff was to the STATE, not the individual.  The only time the interests of the individual and the state intersect, WRT personal defense, is when the interests of the State are served by the protection of that individual (for example, material witnesses in major trials.)
  Since the State has no duty (express, implied, or derived) to protect the individual member of the body politic, then the body politic MUST be empowered with the choice and the ability to protect itself.  No other conclusion can be logically reached.
  As I see it, there are two possible solutions:
1) Make schools something akin to fortresses.  Keep kids locked down all day, don't even let them outside for recess.
  Know that I do NOT favour this approach!  We don't need to be raising children in a climate of fear, it would be far more damaging to their psyches, in the long term, than any single incident could be!
2) Empower and train school staff to "repel boarders," as it were - to deal with threats to the student body rapidly, decisively, and precisely.  Such training would be easy enough to implement; and a handful of faculty or staff, empowered & equipped to handle such threats, would have much greater response times than would waiting for the police.
  Let us refer to Sandy Hook - Lanza went in and started knocking the place down, then shot himself after some five minutes or so had passed, yes?  However, the PD response wasn't even ON SCENE for at least fifteen minutes - at which time, the threat had neutralized ITSELF.
  Now, if they had had, say, an armed & trained individual there in maintenance (which would make sense - maintenance workers are everywhere, move about at random, and have access to pretty much everything,) it is quite likely that Lanza would have been stopped COLD within a minute or two.
  Waiting for PD response involves first CALLING the PD to MOUNT a response.  Then they have to get there.  Then set up their C&C.  Then 'assess the situation' before mounting a response.
  About the only way you can get an active PD response inside of a half-hour is if they were ALREADY ON SCENE - with that sort of time before an effective response could be mounted, one could go through and kill most of the people in a school building with a simple baseball bat!
  This is also why expecting the PDs to secure the individual is impractical - they have to be called, they have to get there, they have to figure out what's going on, and THEN they can respond.
  I'm already there, I already know what's going on (since I'm in the middle of it,) I have already worked out a few different responses, I merely need to pick one.
  PD response time?  5-20 minutes.  My response time? 2-10 SECONDS.  Now, put yourself in that sort of position, and tell me what you would prefer (no driver, no security detail - just you, on the street somewhere.)
  I have nothing against police officers - I have plenty that I am proud to call friends.  However, the typical "beat cop" is really little more than a HISTORIAN - becoming involved AFTER the situation has reached its conclusion (satisfactory or no.)
  Given a choice, I'd rather be able to mount an effective response myself, since I have the duty that the police do not (and, if I don't exercise that duty to the fullest of my ability, that is MY choice.  However, I do not wish to have that ability artificially capped through the action of law.  The bad guys don't follow such laws - that is precisely why we call them "bad guys!")

  As always, I welcome further discussion on this topic.  It is impossible to have a "meeting of the minds," if the minds never meet.

-JDK

-----     SNIP     -----

(No, I signed it with my proper name.  But, I don't see a need to repeat that here.)

We'll see what comes of it.  I don't expect much - but, as they say, "hope springs eternal..."

And now, from the "What?" file... (NSFW-L)

http://www.westernjournalism.com/obama-will-teach-americans-to-budget-responsibly-no-joke/

(Disclaimer - I have not watched the video, I wish they would give text summations as well.  But, the IDEA of this set up enough cognitive dissonance that we had to talk about it.)

Seriously - what?  Fucking WHAT?

What, pray, does Obama know about "living within a budget," or "budgeting responsibly?"

Yes, I know that budget bills and suchlike are supposed to originate in the House, but they must cross the President's desk for approval or dismissal - he's the last stop.

Meanwhile, I think the first proposed budget in four years is finally approaching his desk (haven't had one get approved on his watch yet!)  Hasn't stopped the spend, tho.  Pet projects, "guaranteed loans" to "green" businesses (that have since folded - Solyndra?  A123?) increased welfare spend - and yet Pelosi says we don't have a spending problem?

I think we do.

I further think that, if Obots are silly enough to follow the advice of their Dear Leader (which I can only infer from his policies,) we're going to have a massive uptick in bankruptcy filings in the next couple of years or so.

The fact that there is still a large segment of the population that is silly enough to think he's doing a good job - after the past four years of fucking up pretty much everything - is particularly worrisome to me.  Seriously - what's wrong with people these days?