Thoughts on Gun Control...

Sadly, the idea has been around for far too long...

While doing research on another topic, I had occasion to go through the database of US Patent filings at patents.google.com.  Me being me, I ended up going in several directions at once, and a couple of those directions meant using search terms that had to do with either "micro-stamping" or "smart guns," as generally used by gun-grabbers.  Turns out the first idea has been around for far longer than we thought - the first patent I've found for it was filed in 1924, and granted in 1927!

Anyhow, you can find these at patents.google.com, if you're interested enough to go through these on your own.  I just want to present the list so you know what you're looking for:
"Micro-Stamping," US Patent Issued
- 1,650,908 "Method & Apparatus for Identifying Ammunition" (Ramsey)
- 4,035,942 "Bullet Identification" (Wiczer)
- 4,150,624 "Bullet Identification Means" (Hammond)
- 4,175,346 "Firearm and Bullet Identification" (Zemsky)
- 4,222,330 "Magnetically Tagging Ammunition" (General Electric)
- 5,406,068 "Authorization Card for Purchase of Ammunition and Method of Using" (Nusbaum)
- 5,554,841 "Article Marker and Decoding Method" (Lynn LTD)
- 5,646,365 "Bullet Identification" (Collier)
- 5,685,100 "Bullet Cartridge Casing Identification System" (Atchison)
- 5,698,816 "Identifiable Bullet and Method of Manufacturing Same" (Boeing)
- 5,758,446 "Fired Bullet Identification System" (Atchison)
- 6,209,459B1 "Method for Etching Characters on Bullets and Bullets Made By the Method" (Blount)
- 6,293,204B1 "Code-Labeled Ammunition" (Regen)
- 6,462,302B1 "Rifled Weapon Barrel Engraver and Scanner" (Bar Code Bullet Industries)
- 6,779,716B1 "Rifled Weapon Engraver & Scanner" (Grow)
- 7,240,619B2 "Identifiable Bullet Which Is Unduplicatable" (Kinoshita)
- 7,533,614 "Memory Enhanced Ammunition Cartridge and Method of making and Using the Same" (Reich)
- 8,607,707B1 "Identifiable Ammunition and Related Methods" (Arnon, et al)
- 9,052,176B1 "Shell Casing Marker" (Stefano)
- 9,266,370 "DNA Marking of Previously Undistinguished Items for Traceability" (APDN, Inc)
- 9,908,321B1 Systems and Methods for Identifying Cartridge Cases Based on Ink Marking" (Kalvani IP Holdings)
(Submitted & Documented, not yet Granted)
- 2001-0027619 "Firearm with Identifiable Ejecta" (Randall, et al)
- 2001-0039690 "Firearm with Redundantly-Identifiable Projectiles" (Randall & Randall)
- 2002-0007580 "Shotgun with Automatically Marked Ejecta" (Randall & Randall)
- 2002-0174784A1 "Tagging of Bullets with Luminescent Materials" (Lowden, et al)
- 2002-0178959A1 "Ammunition Tracking System" (Rennard)
- 2003-0217665A1 "Ammunition Tracking System" (Rennard)
- 2004-0027630 "Method and Apparatus for Reading Firearm Microstamping" (Lizotte)
- 2004-0200108A1 "Firearm ID System & Method for Forensic Purposes" (Doiron, et al)
- 2004-0217273A1 "Method & Apparatus for Reading Firearm Microstamping" (Lizotte)
- 2004-0220883A1 "Ammunition Cartridge Identification System and Method" (Lizotte)
- 2004-0227001A1 "Gun Identification Kit" (Lightfoot, et al)
- 2005-0005806A1 "Apparatus & Method for Identifying Ammunition" (Mace)
- 2005-0027630A1 "Method & Apparatus for Reading Firearm Microstamping" (Lizotte)
- 2005-0045056A1 "Serial PIN-Numbering, or Coding of Bullets, Bullet Casings, and Other Projectiles as an Improvement for the Use of Ammunition" (Ositadinma)
- 2005-02141203A1 "Method & Apparatus for Cartridge Identification Imprinting in Difficult Contexts by Recess Protected Indicia" (Lizotte, et al)
- 2006-0174531A1 "Method & Apparatus for Reading Firearm Microstamping" (Lizotte, et al)
- 2008-0184873A1 "Process for Manufacturing Trackable Ammunition" (CBC)
-*2010-0295717A1 "Weapon Detection & Elimination System" (Rourk)
- 2012-0300065A1 "Optical Device for Measuring and Identifying Cylindrical Surfaces by Deflectometry Applied to Ballistic Identification (Willemann, et al)
-*2014-0083318A1 "Radio-Controlled Ammmunition" (Alcatel Lucent)
- 2014-0272097A1 "DNA Marking of Previously Undistinguished Items for Traceability" (Applied DNA Sciences)
-*2015-0007741A1 "Remotely Detectable Ammunition" (Nath & Nath)
- 2016-0216087A1 "Method & Device for Marking Ammunition for Identification or Tracking" (SICPA Holding SA)
- 2016-0257132A1 "Method & Device for Marking Ammunition for Identification or Tracking" (SICPA Holding SA)
-*2017-0160065A1 "Remotely Detectable Ammunition" (Nath, Nath, & Nath)
- 2017-0221115A1 "System for Tagging & Tracking Ammunition (Jarvis)

"Smart" Guns - Patents Issued
- 5,177,318 - Device for Identifying and Checking Ammunition of Auto-Loading Firearm and Process for Implementation (Mechanique Creusot-Loire)
- 5,915,936 "Firearm with Identification Safety System" (Brentzel)
-*6,283,034B1 "Remotely Armed Ammunition" (Miles, Jr)
-*6,735,897B1 "Fire Control Authorization System for a Firearm" (Schmitter, et al)
(Submitted & Documented, not yet Granted)
- 2002-0112390 "Automatic Weapon User ID & Safety Module" (Harling, et al)
- 2013-0019510A1 "Firearm Locking System" (Kemmerer, et al)

I know, it's a bit of a long list.  That's exactly my point - people keep trying to find a way to effectively disable firearms.  The ones I've starred should be particularly worrisome - either on Constitutional grounds (2015-0007741A1, Remotely Detectable Ammunition is an obvious violation of the Fourth Amendment, and possibly the Fifth,) or because your sidearm or rifle can be disabled without your knowledge (everything else starred.)  Whether the firearm is disabled or the ammunition doesn't effectively matter - either way, it won't fire.  However, if the firearm contains the disabling mechanism, it will drive up the price, but you only pay it once.  If the ammunition contains the disabler, then it drives up the price of the ammunition that you'll pay every single time you buy ammunition!

Nevermind that they'll spend the first 5-10 years it's on the market "ironing the bugs out" of "smart" guns (and they'll never be able to deal with batteries going flat - what do you do then?  Especially for a sidearm that lives on standby?) and I'm sure "smart" ammo will take even longer (miniaturized electronics.)  And who know what's going to power the ammo, or what form those batteries will take (or how much ballistic energy will be lost as a result.)  And then there's this little gem:

- 5,773,748 "Limited-Life Cartridge Primers" (Makowiecki, et al,)

which is exactly what it says on the tin.  And the inventor comes right out and says that the whole entire purpose is control of ammunition supply!  Sure, he says it's supposed to slow down violence from gangs and "subversives," but aren't those of us who are taking exception to the direction our government is taking labelled "subversive?"

The "limited life" of primers is given as being between 6 and 60 months, dependent upon storage temperature (ranging 0-50C)  Now yes, one should rotate their stocks of ammunition, but how many people in hot climates would not have been told about this (I'm willing to bet it would have been slipped it without us being told, if it hasn't already...?) and find out that their stored ammo is N/F and NG?

So-called "smart" guns would be something we'd have to be told about (new ones would be fairly obvious, and we'd be largely mandated to retrofit what we've got.)  "Smart" ammo?  We may or may not be told about it - the first indication may be if you're too close to a "Gun-Free Zone" and try to stop something, and find out your sidearm doesn't go bang! like it's supposed to.  Limited-life primers?  I can damn near guarantee you that we won't get told about that little "feature" being added to our ammo, and we won't find out until we run headfirst into it...

Feel free to look up the patents if you like, and please let me know if you find any I haven't gotten listed!

And, as always: Discuss.

Just a couple of passing thoughts...

-  "Sedition" - Rebelling against lawful authority.  What if the authority you're rebelling against is unlawful?

-  "Treason" - Giving aid & comfort to the enemy.  Generally assumed to be an enemy of the government.  But, what if the enemy is the government?

-  "Overthrow" - To depose or remove from authority by force.  I've been accused before of wanting to "overthrow" government, so let me go on record here:

I do not want to overthrow the government

I want to reboot the government

When you come right down to it - for all its flaws (to which I am not blind,) we did start out with a pretty damned good system of governance.  "A Republic, sir, if you can keep it."  Unfortunately, we're losing our Republic.  Government is taking more & more control - not only of us, but of the actions of the Several States - and if the new Democrats have their way, we'll be transformed into the USSA (with a new revolution to soon follow.  Socialist/communist governments don't last very long...)  Activist judges are ruling by diktat from the bench (creating law, vice interpreting it,) and Congress is beginning to ignore its own rules (remember the whole Obamacare flap?  Remember the "penalty/fee/tax/individual mandate/what-the-Hell-ever-it's-called" for not having coverage?  That's a tax measure.  Recall your high school Civics - tax measures are only supposed to originate in the House.  This one originated in the Senate, and it should have been struck on that measure alone!)

Just a couple of thoughts, at 0330 this fine morning.  Watch your six, and keep your powder dry.

SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS!

Negotiations and Firearms in Government...

Here we go again, kids - both sides are calling for "negotiation" in upcoming firearms law, although....:
     D) Looking to get as much out of us as they can get away with, and whittle away at our rights with the biggest tool they'll let us use (they'd prefer a chainsaw, but holding them down to just a hatchet is hard enough work...)
     R) Mainly doing damage control against Democrat "whittling" and to see to the battle wounds after with beer & pretzels, or booze & sammiches."Victories" against democrats merely mean losing as little as possible and getting them to leave us alone for the next couple of years.  (Nota Bebe: While I use the collective pronoun "we," this in't to align myself with the Republicans.  I typically vote for them as the "least of the bad" in the field for the position.  I don't even agree with the Libertarians - I think they've gone soft over the last decade or so.  And the Libertarians are the closest party to my own beliefs and principles.

     However, let's float this idea out:

            1) Agree among ALL sides involved that the firearm bill will contain provisions and content that strictly happens to deal with firearms, ammunition, firearm rights, CCW reciprocity, and the like.

            2) No side may move to take something without giving something in return.  No side may not give something without expecting something to be given back in return.  Maybe the first time it can be a gift - but after that, gifts become an exchange.  When one side "takes" from another, the other side replies with what it wants to "take" in return.

          3)  BATF(E) - "F Troop", after the old television show - is to be eliminated forthwith.  Their convictions are to be re-examined, especially where evidence was "found too easily" or "just perfect" or any other way that indicated it could have been planted; or that Technical Branch had to take some extraordinary effort to expose evidence (taking extraordinary effort to remove a barrel extension off of a semi-auto M4 clone, say, by throwing a six-foot long Stilson wrench on it and having a couple of guys hand off of the end of the thing and bounce, while another guy heads up the junction with a torch.  Honestly - if it takes that much effort to undo, then it's really damned unlikely that anyone in his garage can do it alone without wrecking something, y'know?)  Therefore, F Troop can and should be disbanded.  I propose the following:

          - Technical Branch personnel find civilian jobs.
          - Alcohol Branch people go to the FDA, but with a few changes:

                  -- No more going about armed.  Tax men don't need firearms.  Full Stop.  (This also includes the IRS and, while we're about it, any Cabinet/department personnel.)  If they want to carry off-duty, they can get a local CCW and go through the same process a local civilian does (including supplying a demonstrable need, if you're in a "may issue" state.  "I am a government official" in any permutation or variation is not proof of a demonstrable need...
               -- Taxes on booze to be halved, the FDA doesn't need to make as much money off of booze.
              -- The primary function of the alcohol agent is to spot-check purity of product in the field, make sure that it is not contaminated, no unusual sediment concentration, entrained parasites, &c, &c.  Since he's testing liquids, he can remove product from the shelves - he itemizes what he removes on a list, the store owner/manager gets a copy, the agent keeps a copy, and two copies go up the chain to where they can get signed off and a cheque issued (one stays with the signateur, one with the chequebook.)
               -- As long as he's checking fluids for purity, don't forget to check things like bottled water (recall those "glass worms" found in Nestle's bottle water last month?  Be nice to catch that before they get too far...)

               -- Tobacco agents can move over to FDA to monitor tobacco - similarly unarmed.  Tobacco's purpose - assessment of purity and lack of harmful contamination - may be expanded to include cannabis when that finally gets decriminalized - at a Federal level (something like 2/3 or so of the states have already decriminalized it medically, and half or better either have already approved or are about (likely) to approve it for recreational use.  However you personally fall on the issue, the next  step is to have either officially-run dispensaries or privately-run dispensaries with a reasonable "Commissar's Share," which can be (pardon my phrasing) God-damned well PUT into a counter-addiction programme.  I find it poetic that recreational use of a drug would quell hardcore dependence on a drug.

      -  Firearms guys?  They get pulled off the streets - they've proven themselves incapable of working them in a fair & impartial manner.  Give 'em all a transfer and a reduction in grade - to records, or admin, or something like that: and make sure a "Burn Notice" goes out to all police departments in the nation showing the faces of the men who want to take street jobs and do so as sworn officers, over the message "DO NOT HIRE THESE MEN - PSYCHOLOGICALLY UNSTABLE."  (Which would not be slanderous or libelous in damned near all cases, from what I've seen of them.  The rank-and-file and higher-higher are both nuts.  Same direction; different paths.)

     They can work in Records, they can work in Environmental Services, they can work Building Services. 

      The Firearms Museum may be transferred to the Smithsonian

      - Explosives guys?  Gotta have your head screwed on a bit better to deal with live explosives.  Let them take laterals into PDs that may have EOD/Bomb Squad openings, but there probably won't be enough to take all of them.  Younger fellows can thinking about enlisting and going EOD - they're half-trained already, so banger school shouldn't be too difficult for them.

(If this isn't timely, my apologies - I just found this in a browser tab, I thought I'd already posted it, and found I didn't.  Oops.  Still, worth discussing, I think...)

Violence in movies? Let's see what we can do about that...

     This is a copy of a letter that I will be sending to all three of my Congresscritters, as a proposal for helping to kerb mass shootings by going after the genesis of impulses for such.  We can all agree that there is much violence in Hollywood movies, right?  So, instead of banning firearms outright (which the Left seems bent on doing,) let's ban violence in movies outright!  Spread the word, feel free to use this letter as a template.  Let's BURY  Congress in letters like this, make them sit up and take notice!

     I'll be posting this in parallel on Facebook as well.  Let's spread this idea far & wide, everyone.

     (I know I've been away for a minute or two - I figure this is a good "welcome back" post.  I hope to be back, now that life has settled down a bit for me...)

Jon

Jon D. Kelley

(address redacted)

JonDKelley@gmail.com

13MAR2018

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein

331 Hart Senate office Building

Washington, D.C.  20510

Senator Feinstein;

              I note, with no small dismay, that you are continuing in your efforts to ban firearms, in an effort to curb violent actions.  If you’ll excuse the phrase, I believe you’re putting the cart before the horse.

              A firearm is about as likely to take independent action as your average brick.  It’s not going to jump up and shoot up a school or a mall by itself, it takes a person with malice in their heart to pick it up and do that.  We need to address the people, not the firearms.  I’d like to suggest the following, in an effort to curb violent impulses:

              Knowing that there are many violent movies and movies with violent actions coming out of Hollywood, we should:

-          Ban the use of firearms in movies (including muzzleloading firearms)

-          Ban the scripting of violent actions and/or incidents in movies

-          Ban the showing of people being shot, beaten, thrown off buildings, run over with vehicles, or otherwise damaged and/or killed

-          The most violent act that may be shown on screen would be throwing bits of sponge or wads of paper at each other, and perhaps trading harsh language.

I think you can agree that this is indeed a difficult problem that we face – however, I haven’t seen a proposal to deal with the genesis of violent impulses in an effort to slow down or halt mass shooting incidents.  I think you’ll find that this is a reasonable approach to the problem – and more likely to have an effect than simply banning the use of an inanimate object…

              I am at liberty to discuss this idea further, if you so desire.

Yours,

Jon D. Kelley

San Jose, CA

JonDKelley@gmail.com

People just get weirder and weirder... (NSFW-L)

  And I can't, for the life of me, figure out why.  I'm fairly sure that DSM-5 is an incomplete work, and I've read through the library copy.

  I can't find the psychopathology that would result in the rampant self-loathing that I see from people who cling like oysters to Leftist ideology (idiocy?  For all of the education they're supposed to have, and as intellectual as they try to present themselves, they don't seem to be very bright - once they start talking.)

  Case in point (read through this link before continuing): http://rightwingnews.com/race/professor-i-chose-not-to-have-children-because-they-would-be-white/ (and yes, you're reading the text of that link correctly...)

  Um.  Holy shit!  Anyhow, I found her in the UPenn directory, she's apparently an "Exchange Instructor," according to her email addy: micallis@exchange.upenn.edu.  Full name: Allison S. Michael.

  In return for the "Open Letter" she'd put up (originally at Huffington Post, but it's been getting spread about quite a bit...) I've decided to return with this:

-----     SNIP     -----

Professor Michael -
  I am curious about something.  At what point in your life did you decide to have such self-loathing over simply having light-coloured skin?  When did simply being caucasian become a crime?

  Being white myself, I am quite curious about this.  I have yet to see why having "white" skin is an issue, why it should make us any better or any worse than anyone else.

  Then again, I prefer to judge others by their actions, by the content of their heart and of their mind - not by the colour of their skin.  I have friends of all colours.  I served in the Air Force with people of all colours.  I have dated ethnic women - and had quite happy relationships.

  I have never once felt "white guilt" or "white pride" - nor do I "happen to be white."  Mum's white, dad's white, what else could I be?  It would be more of a surprise if I were to "happen to be Asian," I'd think.  It's more of a surprise that I "happen to be" over six feet tall - since height doesn't normally run in my line.  Makes me a throwback, you see.

  But, I'm not writing so much to talk about me.  I'm curious about you.  There had to be some sort of "defining incident" that was the genesis of all of this self-loathing and "white guilt" that you feel - and feel so much that you even transfer it to your progenitors and refuse to reproduce as a result!  That is an amazing transference of guilt, by far the most extreme case I have ever seen!

  Moreover, you want to transfer your guilt onto the entire population of the Earth that is Caucasian - which, to me, speaks more to arrogance on your part.  You think we should ALL feel guilty, over something that ended in this country 150 years ago, and there is NO-ONE alive that was directly affected by slavery.

  And, if you want to talk about guilt, why are you not handing out a share to the Negroes themselves?  Couldn't buy if no-one was selling - that's just basic market forces.  I've said the same thing to Black people who have been talking positively of "reparations for Slavery" - don't just go after the United States.  English and Dutch ships brought slaves over here, and Negroes were /sold/ /into/ /slavery/ by OTHER NEGROES.

  Where is the "Black guilt"?  Where are the reparations coming from West Africa - where the slaves were originally sold?  Let's look at the /whole/ picture here - not just one corner.

  Moving on - what do you meen by "whites to feel adequately guilty"?  What is "adequately guilty"?  I feel no guilt, because I have done nothing wrong.  I treat everyone equally, with the basic respect that one human being owes another, until something happens to indicate that I should offer more or less.  I have no responsibility for inequality between ethnotypes, because I did not do anything to create or perpetuate any inequity or disparity.  I instead work to create /equality/, and that is something that /nobody/ should feel any guilt over.

  Feeling guilt is non-productive.  Your "white guilt" and rampant self-loathing are useless feelings, will not accomplish anything, and will likely turn into paralyzing depression if you allow them to continue.  After all this time, I honestly don't know how you manage to get out of bed in the morning - all this guilt must be psychologically crippling for you!

  As to what Caucasians have done throughout history?  I wasn't present for history.  I assume no responsibility for anything that happened before 1977 - 1972 at the earliest (I was born mid-1972.)  How couldI feel guilt for anything that happened 200 years before I was born?  Is that not a ridiculous thing to be thinking?

  Or, do you intend to attack me for being "white without shame" - instead of answering my questions and beginning to analyse the cause of your self-loathing and probable depression. 

  And, quite frankly, I worry for your students.  I sincerely hope you aren't teaching this in the classroom - or, if you are, you run into a student like me who will /force/ you to re-examine your beliefs and your history, and realise just what a crooked path you're on.

  As to "white privilege"?  The next person who says that within two metres of me is risking a broken nose.  If white people are so bloody privileged, why have I been homeless for the last two years?  Why am I living in a motorhome, parked behind a City library, grabbing their Wi-Fi signal, and running a generator for electricity?  If I'm so bloody privileged, why do I have to go find a source of water?

  And just /why/ am I supposed to feel guilty for the actions of people long-dead?

  I await your reply.  Both this message and your replay may be considered "open letters," please bear in mind.

-----     SNIP    -----

If I get a response from her, I'll post that here as well.

-JDK

Mega-Fines and Consumers

  I'm back!

  I know, I've been away for a bit.  Long story.  Ain't over yet.  Doesn't improve with retelling.  But, I've been up to my fat arse in alligators, and every damned one of them has wanted a bite.  Ugh.  Ain't much of my sit-upon left...

  Anyhow.  On to why I'm here...

  Howcumzit that, whenever some company does something wrong, the government fines the company for the wrongdoing?  The problem with those fines (case in point - the recent FCC fine of $100M against AT&T over their "unlimited" data plan and low data speeds) is that:
  1) The people who made the decisions aren't personally hit with anything
  2) The fines are "passed through" to the consumers, in the form of rate or price increases.

  Every time I hear about some mega-fine against some company, I groan inside.  Every time I hear someone cheering about it, I don't keep it in.  Then, I end up having to explain why I'm groaning about it.  The usual answer I get?  "Damn.  I never thought of it that way..."

  (No shit.  Most people wouldn't.  Gotta step back and look at a bigger picture...)

  Same with class-action suits.  Except we can add to the list:
  3) The only people who really "win" anything are the attorneys.  Big payday for them!  Niggardly payout for the members of the class.

  Pfizer has to pay out $150M for some pharma class action judgement?  1/3 of that is raw attorneys' fees ($50M,) a good chunk of that gets eaten up in administration ($20M or so,) and the rest filters down to the class (2-5M members,) postage out, and it's probably not a cash payout to the class anyhow.  Lawyers make bank, people get boned.

  I propose something different...

  FINES: If a "company" is to be fined due to executive decisions, then the company itself is not to be fined.  Rather, the executives responsible for the decision(s) are to be fined personally.  This means the B-, C-, E-, V-, and D- level execs are the ones on the hook for fines, they've got to cough up, and cough up HARD.  Company's consumer prices are to be fixed at present level by law, and allowed nominal increases for the following five years or so, with any increase above the amount allowed by the judgement requiring detailed technological justification (id est, a major technical upgrade became necessary, or a natural disaster made replacing a data centre necessary, or something like that.  Such justification to be filed with the governing body and posted in detail to be available for the consumers [and sent out in summary with the last bill prior to the increase.]

  To be honest, I'd rather see the Execs and/or the Board held personally liable to the tune of $100M than the company held liable for $100M - the company doesn't "make decisions," that's why it has Directors and various executives.  So, hold them up!

Discuss

JDK

Either I screwed up...

Or the blogger engine dropped the message.  Hopefully, the full copypasta will appear this time - my apologies if it shows up twice.

It doesn't seem to want to work - at least, not in "preview" mode.  If you want to see the original, feel free to email me and ask (and if the whole thing shows up, please let me know how you see it.  Blogspot may have shuffled something around while I was away...  -JDK)

-----     SNIP     -----

I am emailing you both at the same time, openly, because I would like to know where you stand on a few issues.

- I note that you are consistently running on platforms of "public safety."  Much is being made of the idea of cutbacks to the San Jose Police Department, or pension arrangements, or street officers, or whatever.  My question on this?  What do you plan to do to allow and enable people to protect themselves?  There are many of us who are quite willing and able to defend ourselves against a number of threads - but the means allowed us aren't comprehensive.  We aren't all interested in putting more officers on the beat - simply because you cannot man the SJPD enough to protect everyone.  However, those of us who are ready, willing, and able to take efforts and actions to provide for our own security, and find our efforts limited by law, are frustrated by this.  Have either of you a plan to address this idea?

- The California macroeconomy, and the Silicon Valley microeconomy in particular, has been hit especially hard by the effects of the "dot-com bubble," followed by the "subprime mortgage bubble."  This has resulted in property values becoming artificially inflated by an order of magnitude - if not more.  The artificial (and wholly unnecessary) inflation in housing prices has contributed to homelessness, is driving people out of the area, and has actually trapped more than a few people IN the area (simply because they'd get raked over the coals on capital gains taxes if they sold up.  Despite having made NO improvements to their own homes, but resulting from the improvements made by neighbours.)  Have either of you a plan to address this?

- Speaking of homelessness: for a number of reasons - but most particularly artifically-inflated properly values - we seem to be leading the country in terms of relative homeless population (and probably absolute.  I haven't checked recently.)  I suppose this hits particularly close to home - as my wife and I are homeless.  Our address is essentially two license plates and a Post box!  "Moving along" is no sort of solution to homelessness, the problem needs to be FIXED, not relocated.  I believe a city in Utah had taken a novel approach - by providing housing and assistance for job placement.  Perhaps something similar can be done here?  Provide basic housing for those who are "sleeping rough," create an "RV Haven" for those of us who have motorhomes (can hook up to limited City water, shore power, and sewerage in exchange for contributing some amount of work?  While both of us are disabled, we are still willing to work part-time within our abilities; I, for instance, would be perfectly willing to perform light maintenance work, consistent with my skills, experience, and limitations.)

While I'm sure there are more issues to address, those are the three that come to mind first.  Do please note that I am posting this letter to my blog (jondkelley.blogspot.com,) as well as any replies that I get.  While I have consistently challenged the idea that the press has fostered an absolute and unlimited "right to know," I do think that this is the sort of thing that the body politic should be made aware of.

I have been a California resident since 1990, and a San Jose resident since 1997, so I've been watching things happen around here for a while.  I've seen at least a few trends that should properly be reversed, but no-one is doing anything about it.

Further, I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this with either - or both - of you in person, should you care to do so.

Jon D. Kelley

San Jose, CA