Okeh.
Could someone please tell me how political parties generate their public donor lists?
I have been registered NPA since 1990 (I've never agreed with either major party. The Republicans are closest to what I think, but they're too centrist for my liking. I'm too damned far to the Right for the Libertarians! Tiny government, basic functions only, minimal tax bite, and why are we paying the bastards at all - let alone as much as we do?)
But, the Democrats keep pestering me for $3 at a time. Probably twice a week. Over & over again.
I have NEVER donated to the Democrats. I don't plan to donate to the Democrats. The last Democrat I can think of that would have gotten my vote was JFK - at least he believed in protecting the nation, not selling it out or selling out the people (Obama, you listening? Pelosi? Feinstein? Boxer? Lofgren? You're not following your Oaths! STOP IT.)
So, why to the Democrats keep pestering me? Why can't they get the message? I'm not going to donate to them. I'm probably NEVER going to donate to them - they're so far to the Left these days that they'd trip over Stalin's grave if they made a centrist move!
I don't really want the job. I wouldn't spend the first four years campaigning for a second four years. I figure if I do a good job, you'll tell me - or you can hold my second term in reserve.
But, I'm thinking I could do a better job as President than most people since Reagan. And, I'd like to use Executive Orders to:
- Stop "riders." If it doesn't have anything to do with the subject matter of the bill proposed, it gets struck. Full stop.
- Proposed bills are allowed to be fifty pages long (single-sided) or twenty-five pages long (double-sided.) If I can't read it in five minutes, it gets kicked back for a rewrite.
- Every law proposed /will/ include a provision to redact an existing law. This should be doable for the next 30 or 40 years before we start to notice, but it should stop the wild growth of laws. Seriously - the body of law is like a damned field of dandelions! Have you ever /been/ to a law library?
- This "full-time legislature" thing is going to stop. Therefore, they don't need full-time pay, or full-time staff. This should help bring the budget down.
- Speaking of: If the budget can't propose expenditures of 95% /or/ /less/ of projected income, it gets struck and kicked back for resubmission. If this goal can't be met one month before the end of the Fiscal Year, ALL elected personnel forfeit their pay until the budget is submitted /and/ /approved/. Suck it up, buttercup - if you want to get paid, you fix it so everyone knows what's going on! (This includes Cabinet-level people. They're not popularly elected, but they /are/ approved by Congress, and they're responsible for the budgets for their departments.) And no, you don't get back pay once it's done - forfeited pay gets used to service the principal on the Public Debt.
- And speaking of that: The 5% gap between income and expenditures? 3% of projected income is used to service the Public Debt, the remaining 2% is banked as a "Rainy Day Fund" once Social Security and Medicare has been refunded.
- And then Social Security and Medicare are to be left /alone/ - unless it is to fund a project that either benefits the Nation /as/ /a/ /whole/ or the race /as/ /a/ /whole/. No more pork-barrel crap.
- In fact, no special projects done for cronyism. If I find out about it, I hope you've picked your replacement - I'm going to find a way to fire your ass!
- No retirement from elected office. Period. No benefits accrue. You can get Social Security like the rest of us.
- No Cadillac health plans, either. You get MediCare (see how fast those get fixed!)
- Peruse previous Executive Orders, rescind orders prejudicial to liberty. This is going to require a balancing act, I'm sure - but it's necessary.
- Peruse the /Federal/ /Register/. Did you know that if something was published in the /Register/ and unchallenged for a given time (90, 120, or 180 days - I don't recall which offhand,) it carried the /force/ /of/ /law/? /Without/ debate or voting? Anything that carried the force of law through publication in the /Register/ gets considered, debated openly, and (likely) rescinded.
- Also, go through USC and CFR. With a red pen. I'm perfectly willing to bet that fully a quarter to a third of the body of law, at the Federal level, can be rescinded out of hand without any negative social effect.
That's a good start, anyhow.
Discuss.
Saturday, November 30, 2013
Thursday, July 4, 2013
The difference between fact and fiction? (NSFW-L)
Fiction is still constrained by the limits of believability.
Which is why we have the phrase, "You can't make this shit up!"
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/washington-state-gets-rid-sexist-language-162549523.html
Yes, the world has indeed gone mad - some of it just faster than others.
The "Great State of Washington" has decided, debated, voted upon, and signed into a law a measure requiring that current and future laws be rewritten in "Gender Neutral" language.
"Fisherman?" Nope - you're a "fisher" now.
"Freshman?" Try "First-year student."
"Penmanship?" Gone entirely - now it's "handwriting."
In all, they've had the time, resources, and funding to change some 40,000 words of state law (the fact that there were 40,000 words that "needed" changing - and weren't even all of the words of state law - is an issue for another discussion!)
Oh, fuck me very much. (And it should come as no surprise that this is a Democrat measure, signed into law by a Democrat governor.)
I just can't believe this. With the price of housing creating a new class of person - the "working homeless" - the price of petroleum blowing EVERYTHING out of proportion, the job market falling to bits around our ears, wages aren't keeping up with inflation anyhow, the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") coming in a few more months to bone us all, and everything else that fair DEMANDS IMMEDIATE ATTENTION, you have the time, effort, and money to piss away on THIS bullshit?
Stupid ideas like this are why I'd like to be "HMFIC of Common Sense" - my job to walk around legislative chambers with a four-foot section of 2x4, and swat anyone who comes up with a stupid idea like this in the back of his head and fine him whatever I feel necessary, in proportion to the asininity displayed (min. fine $5,000, but true "weapons-grade stupidity" may be punished by just withholding ALL of their pay and having done with it.)
It's incidents like this that make me think that elected officials should be paid according to quality and utility of work output - because then THEY would pay US for permission to work, which would help to offset the continuous budgetary deficits they keep bawling about...
Discuss. Bear in mind that, as I was taught in school (and countless generations before me,) "In cases of mixed, indeterminate, or unknown gender; the use of the masculine pronoun shall be considered appropriate." (This has held true in every language I've had even a passing familiarity with...)
Which is why we have the phrase, "You can't make this shit up!"
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/washington-state-gets-rid-sexist-language-162549523.html
Yes, the world has indeed gone mad - some of it just faster than others.
The "Great State of Washington" has decided, debated, voted upon, and signed into a law a measure requiring that current and future laws be rewritten in "Gender Neutral" language.
"Fisherman?" Nope - you're a "fisher" now.
"Freshman?" Try "First-year student."
"Penmanship?" Gone entirely - now it's "handwriting."
In all, they've had the time, resources, and funding to change some 40,000 words of state law (the fact that there were 40,000 words that "needed" changing - and weren't even all of the words of state law - is an issue for another discussion!)
Oh, fuck me very much. (And it should come as no surprise that this is a Democrat measure, signed into law by a Democrat governor.)
I just can't believe this. With the price of housing creating a new class of person - the "working homeless" - the price of petroleum blowing EVERYTHING out of proportion, the job market falling to bits around our ears, wages aren't keeping up with inflation anyhow, the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") coming in a few more months to bone us all, and everything else that fair DEMANDS IMMEDIATE ATTENTION, you have the time, effort, and money to piss away on THIS bullshit?
Stupid ideas like this are why I'd like to be "HMFIC of Common Sense" - my job to walk around legislative chambers with a four-foot section of 2x4, and swat anyone who comes up with a stupid idea like this in the back of his head and fine him whatever I feel necessary, in proportion to the asininity displayed (min. fine $5,000, but true "weapons-grade stupidity" may be punished by just withholding ALL of their pay and having done with it.)
It's incidents like this that make me think that elected officials should be paid according to quality and utility of work output - because then THEY would pay US for permission to work, which would help to offset the continuous budgetary deficits they keep bawling about...
Discuss. Bear in mind that, as I was taught in school (and countless generations before me,) "In cases of mixed, indeterminate, or unknown gender; the use of the masculine pronoun shall be considered appropriate." (This has held true in every language I've had even a passing familiarity with...)
Thursday, June 6, 2013
More from Lofgren re: "Safe Schools"
Dear
Mr. Kelley:
Thank
you for your follow-up response regarding the Safe Schools Act.
You're
right that we certainly agree on the desired result of safe schools for our children, but, after reading
your email, we do differ when it comes to our beliefs about the best method for achieving that goal.
While we may not agree entirely, I appreciate hearing your views, and I assure you that I'll keep your
letter in mind as we continue to debate school safety in Congress.
----- SNIP -----
Cripes. Yes, we do differ. Come up with a proposal that has a shot at working, and I'll listen. I've given you a couple, but you won't.
Now tell me, which of us should be in office?
Bugger.
-JDK
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Feinstein's Response (Internet Sales Tax)
Dear Mr. Kelley :
Thank you for your expressing your opposition to collecting sales taxes on Internet purchases. I appreciate hearing from you, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.
I am a cosponsor of the "Marketplace Fairness Act" (S. 743,) which was introduced by Senator Michael Enzi (R-WY) on February 14, 2013. This bill would allow states to require sellers to remit sales taxes on internet purchases. The legislation includes an exemption for online retailers with gross annual sales in the United States under $1,000,000. The "Marketplace Fairness Act" is awaiting consideration by the Senate Finance Committee.
I understand you have concerns that this legislation would create a new tax on internet purchases. To be clear, this is not the case. Items purchased over the internet are subject to sales taxes in states that levy these taxes, including California. Under current law, it is the responsibility of the buyer to report these purchases and pay the taxes. This system puts brick and mortar businesses, which have to collect sales taxes at the point of sale, at a relative disadvantage in the pricing of their products. This bill would make it easier for states to collect the sales taxes they are already owed on internet purchases. Ultimately, it would be up to states to decide whether to require the collection of these taxes.
Once again, thank you for writing. If you have any further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841.
That Feinstein is a co-sponsor surprises me not. Feinstein is a statist Democrat - she'd be in favour of anything that increases government power or government funding. Anyhow.....
----- SNIP -----
Senator Feinstein -
Thank you for making your position on this known (it came as no particular surprise to me,) but I note that you didn't seem to address any of the points I'd brought up in my letter.
Meanwhile, allow me to address your points in kind, and perhaps add a couple of my own:
"I am a cosponsor of the "Marketplace Fairness Act" (S. 743 ), which was introduced by Senator Michael Enzi (R-WY) on February 14, 2013. This bill would allow states to require sellers to remit sales taxes on internet purchases. The legislation includes an exemption for online retailers with gross annual sales in the United States under $1,000,000. The "Marketplace Fairness Act" is awaiting consideration by the Senate Finance Committee."
How are we to expect collection and disbursement of all of these sales taxes to be handled? Where these taxes are to have been collected, that fell to the purchaser (on his annual tax return.)
However, you now want a broad assortment of RETAILERS to keep track of the various sales tax jurisdictions: their rates, their process, their contact information, &c &c. Isn't this putting an unnecessary load on these businesses? Are you expecting the states to simplify how they're going to get "their" money? How much is that anticipated to cost - yet another cost that taxpayers are expected to bear...
(Yes, I know the bill CURRENTLY stipulates a one million dollar gross sales/year threshhold - but how many of us REALLY think that it will stay up there? How many of us think it will be eventually ALL RETAILERS?)
"I understand you have concerns that this legislation would create a new tax on internet purchases. To be clear, this is not the case. Items purchased over the internet are subject to sales taxes in states that levy these taxes, including California. Under current law, it is the responsibility of the buyer to report these purchases and pay the taxes. This system puts brick and mortar businesses, which have to collect sales taxes at the point of sale, at a relative disadvantage in the pricing of their products. This bill would make it easier for states to collect the sales taxes they are already owed on internet purchases. Ultimately, it would be up to states to decide whether to require the collection of these taxes."
I was not concerned about it as a "new tax" - naturally, if it had been the imposition of a "new tax," this bill would have had to have started on the House, not gone there after Senate approval (it's been 25 years since my last civics class, but I do recall that the Founders intended for the PEOPLE to be represented in taxation - not the States. And, since the Senators were originally appointed by State legislatures, it was required that "finance" bills be introduced in the House.)
However, while it won't impose a NEW tax, it will still impose a burden on the taxpaying citizen - and, looking at recent economic history, an increased effect tax rate is the LAST thin we need - we're trying to get into a recovery, and you can't do that if you keep having capital syphoned off without producing anything in return.
But, I think you misunderstand where the "advantage" lies between walk-in retail and mail-order retail. Walk-in retail requires more floor space to accommodate foot traffic, which calls for less efficient storage of wares, less ability to stock wares (without increasing floor space,) and is - by its nature - required to be situated in high-traffic (therefore high-rent) areas!
Couple that with the fact that property "values" have been artificially inflated as a result of the recent "subprime lending crisis," which have dragged other prices along with them. So, a walk-in retail store is stuck with a logistically (relatively) inefficient use of space & resources - which they have to pay more for.
A mail-order business needs only to accommodate their own staff, is able to much more efficiently use their available floor space (and cubic volume!) is able to be situated wherever they please (as long as they have access to USPS/contract carrier shipping,) doesn't require the lighting of retail, has a lower burden for climate control - mail-order businesses have an advantage in logistics, more than anything else. Their big expense is in shipping, but that can be balanced out through selection of location, efficient use of space & staff, reduced utilities, and the like.
In short, mail-orders don't enjoy an advantage due to tax structure - it is entirely attributable to the business model! And, it actually makes sense for much of our economy to shift to mail-order, it being more efficient than walk-in retail. (This is not to say that walk-in stores will ever entirely go away, but it's probably going to primarily be things like foodstuffs, clothing, various parts, and entertainment venues.)
And, if you're going to leave it up to the states to decide whether or not to collect (do you honestly think any of them are going to say No?) then why is a Federal law necessary? Given that, I think it quite likely that there are other - far more important - matters to concern the Senate - recovery of the economy, increase in employment (tip: bring manufacturing jobs back!) correction of fuel prices (there's no reason for them to be as high as they are, not that I can see...) allowing the Postal People to operate under budget once again,) and other measures that will have a far more beneficial impact on the Federal AND local economy!
So, a brief analysis:
- Since the decision was, is, and apparently remains with the States, a Federal law is unnecessary,
- This law won't do anything to help the economy in terms of the Public at large - instead, it will cause somewhat more difficulty for citizens,
- It imposes an unnecessary, unproductive administrative burden on businesses (which will actually INCREASE base prices!)
- It has a theoretical "floor" for enforcement - but who is to say we don't get the rug yanked out from under us?
- It does nothing to address the intrinsic differences in business model between walk-in retail and mail-order retail (NOR SHOULD IT. Businesses should be free to select under whichever model they choose to operate,)
- It does nothing to address inflation - either the inflation that's put businesses into the messes they're in, or the inflation that shall continue to come along,
- Nor does it address real estate or utility price increases - which will effect both businesses and residences.
One does not need a course in economics or government to figure out that this bill won't do anything useful to help businesses or people, it will merely add to the burdensome body of law to which we are already subject (If "Ignorance of the Law" is no excuse for breaking it, then the laws should be reduced in number until they become a body the average individual can keep up with - the fact that there are over twenty general specialisations of United States Law - a CREATED system - is indicative of an underlying problem, I think.
Jon D Kelley
Proprietor and Chief Engineer
Kelley's Works in Progress
San Jose, CA
Kelley's Works in Progress
San Jose, CA
Sunday, May 5, 2013
Internet Sales Tax measure:
This is expected to be vote on on Monday, 13MAY2013. WRITE YOUR SENATORS NOW!
This measure's primary proponent is Senator Mark Enzi (R-WY,) so email him and email BOTH of your state senators! This is likely to place an unnecessary burden on small businesses (now or in the future,) and is wrongheaded and foolish - especially with all of the economic troubles we're having right now...
----- SNIP -----
Senator Enzi;
I would like to write you in protest of the Internet sales tax being discussed (and, hopefully, voted down.)
I do not believe the consequences of such a bill are being fully considered, and it is being pushed through for the wrong reasons. Allow me to elaborate:
- If a state "depends" on revenue generated from sales tax (local or interstate sales,) then it should work to reassess its priorities. Perhaps spending less money would be an answer?
- Having to assess, collect, and remit sales taxes for all state imposes an unnecessary and burdensome task upon small businesses that conduct sales over the Internet. This will also open up businesses to potential for being audited, penalized, and even potentially sued by any of the forty-odd states that collect sales taxes, rather than just the state in which they are present and the Federal government.
- Having to send out separate remittances to a number of states every quarter similarly imposes a great (and unnecessary) adminstrative burden upon small businesses - a large corporation has the resources and manpower to handle this, but a "one-man band" business? Not so much.
- This bill is purported to help small business. However, small businesses (like myself, for instance) are more likely to go out of business entirely, rather than deal with the headache that would be imposed by this measure.
- The businesses that are complaining most about a "tax advantage" for Internet sales are most likely located in various microeconomies where local inflation has run rampant, and they therefore have a greater cost of doing business. Assessing state sales taxes does nothing to address this problem - what is needed is economic recovery in various areas (urban California, New York City, and the like spring readiliy to mind,) because the base price will still be lower - and it's entirely possible that the cost of ordering online, including paying sales tax and shipping, will be rather less.
- This can also open the travelling consumer up to "double taxation" - once the "use taxes" become mandated, what's to stop a state from assessing purchases made in corpus out-of-state with the state's own "use tax" above and beyond the sales tax already paid? (Nota Bene: I believe this is what is happening with California's "sin tax" on tobacco - in all forms - but i have yet to verify this. So, if I were to purchase a box of cigars while out-of-state, I am theoretically required to pay: state sales tax, state tobacco tax, and California's tobacco tax - and from all of these taxes, I get nothing in return.)
While the measure - as currently proposed - seems to exempt small businesses - what's top stop it from being changed later, to apply to all Internet sales? And, potentially, to all purchases made while a state resident is not physically present in the state?
In addition, with all of the economic headache that America has right now, how can it be thought that increasing the tax bite on the consumer would be any help?
Senator, I implore you to reject this measure out of hand, it does not serve the interests of the American people, and it is open to greater abuse in the future. Moreover, I consider it wrong-headed and foolish, and is likely to serve as a sterling example of the Law of Unintended Consequences in the near future!
Thank you.
(signed) Jon D. Kelley
cc: Senator BOXER, Senator FEINSTEIN.
----- SNIP -----
Per usual, I will be sure to post any responses I get.
This measure's primary proponent is Senator Mark Enzi (R-WY,) so email him and email BOTH of your state senators! This is likely to place an unnecessary burden on small businesses (now or in the future,) and is wrongheaded and foolish - especially with all of the economic troubles we're having right now...
----- SNIP -----
Senator Enzi;
I would like to write you in protest of the Internet sales tax being discussed (and, hopefully, voted down.)
I do not believe the consequences of such a bill are being fully considered, and it is being pushed through for the wrong reasons. Allow me to elaborate:
- If a state "depends" on revenue generated from sales tax (local or interstate sales,) then it should work to reassess its priorities. Perhaps spending less money would be an answer?
- Having to assess, collect, and remit sales taxes for all state imposes an unnecessary and burdensome task upon small businesses that conduct sales over the Internet. This will also open up businesses to potential for being audited, penalized, and even potentially sued by any of the forty-odd states that collect sales taxes, rather than just the state in which they are present and the Federal government.
- Having to send out separate remittances to a number of states every quarter similarly imposes a great (and unnecessary) adminstrative burden upon small businesses - a large corporation has the resources and manpower to handle this, but a "one-man band" business? Not so much.
- This bill is purported to help small business. However, small businesses (like myself, for instance) are more likely to go out of business entirely, rather than deal with the headache that would be imposed by this measure.
- The businesses that are complaining most about a "tax advantage" for Internet sales are most likely located in various microeconomies where local inflation has run rampant, and they therefore have a greater cost of doing business. Assessing state sales taxes does nothing to address this problem - what is needed is economic recovery in various areas (urban California, New York City, and the like spring readiliy to mind,) because the base price will still be lower - and it's entirely possible that the cost of ordering online, including paying sales tax and shipping, will be rather less.
- This can also open the travelling consumer up to "double taxation" - once the "use taxes" become mandated, what's to stop a state from assessing purchases made in corpus out-of-state with the state's own "use tax" above and beyond the sales tax already paid? (Nota Bene: I believe this is what is happening with California's "sin tax" on tobacco - in all forms - but i have yet to verify this. So, if I were to purchase a box of cigars while out-of-state, I am theoretically required to pay: state sales tax, state tobacco tax, and California's tobacco tax - and from all of these taxes, I get nothing in return.)
While the measure - as currently proposed - seems to exempt small businesses - what's top stop it from being changed later, to apply to all Internet sales? And, potentially, to all purchases made while a state resident is not physically present in the state?
In addition, with all of the economic headache that America has right now, how can it be thought that increasing the tax bite on the consumer would be any help?
Senator, I implore you to reject this measure out of hand, it does not serve the interests of the American people, and it is open to greater abuse in the future. Moreover, I consider it wrong-headed and foolish, and is likely to serve as a sterling example of the Law of Unintended Consequences in the near future!
Thank you.
(signed) Jon D. Kelley
cc: Senator BOXER, Senator FEINSTEIN.
----- SNIP -----
Per usual, I will be sure to post any responses I get.
Monday, April 29, 2013
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?
----- 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?
----- 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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
