Thoughts:

I explained that I *do* write my senators and representatives to speak my mind so I hope he’ll be as responsive as Mr. Gregg was. Mrs. Shaheen has only responded twice and only via email. Even if it’s a staff, it did feel good getting a letter that did directly address my points. I hope this will continue.

Concerns:

According to the CBO, they estimate 31 billion (and change) from a tobacco increase of $0.39 to $1 a pack that’ll continue to increase through 2019 to a value of 79 billion dollars. I have to ask, what crack are they smoking? (no pun intended) I know people who smoke and are paying from between $6.50 a pack now to as much as $8-9 per pack in MA. They are ALREADY at the tipping point when they will no longer be able to afford to smoke and will thus quit. How will they replace that money?

There has been talk about a meals / alcohol tax. Fine, when they do that and people like me enjoy their cigars and liquor less, who are they going to tax next? You cannot tax a behavior. It’s unsustainable. You can’t call smokers on one hand evil doers who are causing lung cancer and must be taxed to pay for health coverage of people who inhale their smoke… and then tax the smokers to quit.

If the above does happen, what additional taxes as a white, middle class, tax payer am I going to see because from where I sit, it’s going to come down my pipe at some point.

Questions:

I think everyone agrees that wall street needs a lot of reform. Mortgages and securities being shuffled around in a shell game until the table fell over was tragic, but taxing private traders to cover reform? I am new to investing, and it’s prohibitive on the costs versus the benefits. If I need to trade 500 shares of stock in order to be profitable because of a tax, I won’t trade. Quick and to the point, you cannot tax an action to such an extent that you make it unattractive to try out. Quite simply put, you won’t see your projected revenues because people won’t do it. So what do you propose as a way to keep AIG and the big players in check without completely screwing me as someone who is starting to do this?

Let me start by saying THIS IS NOT AN ENDORSEMENT FOR MR HODES. Just some of my observations. I was kind of excited about this. It was a very interesting way to get people to attend these meetings. I did some very basic research on him and I’m intrigued. I have some homework I need to do on him, but here are the important points for me:

Guns

I agree with him on:

• Maintain and strengthen the current level of enforcement of existing federal restrictions on the purchase and possession of guns.
• Allow citizens to carry concealed guns.

I disagree with him on:

• Establish a national database of ballistic “fingerprints” to track guns used in criminal activities.

There are obviously more areas, and I have only begun to stratch the surface, but it’s a start. That is just my first prelim thoughts on the matter. More research is needed, but for now I’ll leave you with this very entertaining note from Penn and Teller on Gun Control.

Back on June 27th 2008, the US Supreme Court held:

…the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for private use in federal enclaves. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states. It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self defense.

This ruling was important for several reasons:

1. It ended the miss-conception that the 2nd amendment right was tied to some kind of militia service
2. It affirmed it was an individual right that ever American shares
3. It completely threw out the D.C. handgun ban as being unconstitutional

There are only a very few instances I will consent to being disarmed by anyone. Here are a few of them.

• In a court house
• On an airplane (while no to firearms for what I think is obvious reasons, Tasers and other non-lethal alternatives should be allowed on)
• … and near the president

Let me be very clear about my feelings on “gun bans”. I am 100% against them. They have not been shown to be effective against crime, and if the situation did arise that it was needed, I would prefer to have that option available to me. Let me also emphasize this for anyone out there who took Professor Fong’s statistics and probability class back in college. I don’t care about statistics and that isn’t the purpose of this article. I don’t care what the percentage chance of violence against me is based on what city I’m in. This is about principles and fundamental rights. If you don’t agree with me, then fine. Does that mean I can carry a fully automatic AK-47 down the street on my shoulder? (even though it would be pretty bad ass…) No of course not, but before anyone says, “OMG you want to allow Bill Gates to buy an M1 Abrams tank and Warren Buffet to buy nuclear weapons…”. Putting the absurd nature of that statement aside, I think this sums it up:

Even the NRA concedes that you can’t have mad men running around with weapons of mass destruction. So there are some restrictions that are permissible and it will be the task of the legislature and the courts to ferret all of that out and draw the lines. I am sure, though, that outright bans on handguns like they have in D.C. won’t be permitted. That is not a reasonable restriction under anybody’s characterization. It is not a restriction, it’s a prohibition.

Now post Heller, the Democratic majority (… of the two independents, one was a former Democrat and the other a former Republican) in the D.C. Council quickly rushed to change their laws and regulations and in typical Washington fashion, constructed stupid, and lengthy regulations to “allowed” the lowly people of the city to keep firearms in their house. In an ironic twist, Dick Heller was denied his application for a permit to have a firearm in his home because his 8rnd 1911 didn’t meet their regulations. The whole situation is completely foolish.

… and what does Police Chief Cathy Lanier feel on the topic? I personally loved this one, because it re-enforces the “Only One” mentality that David Codrea coined so aptly.

I think the reasonableness standard of the handgun laws in the District, which are not completely banned, because there is licensed handguns in the District of Columbia for law enforcement, retired law enforcement, federal law enforcement, security agencies. So, there is not a complete ban on handguns.

~ Washington DC Police Chief Cathy Lanier

So what do I want out of all this? I want the gun bans in Chicago, San Francisco, and anywhere else they are outright banned, lifted. I want more uniform requirements and regulations from state to state. Driving a car isn’t in the bill of rights, but they sure did make it easy for my NH license to be valid in MA and other states. It also takes 2 weeks here in NH and about 8 months to get a MA permit. (if you can even get one) I want a nationwide CCW permit system setup that allows me not to worry if I accidentally parked my car in a certain area of the Sears parking lot at the Pheasant Lane Mall in Nashua, at which point I could be arrested for carrying illegally in MA. Do I feel like the laws are setting honest people up to fail? Some yes, and this is wrong.

If you don’t agree with guns, or my feelings on this. That is your right, but also let me say this, you’re feelings on the matter do not trump my rights to carry firearms on my person or have them in my home for whatever reason I deem fit. I do not OC (open carry) very much. I am not one of those people who likes to try and make statements or intimidate people. For the most part, I understand some people are uncomfortable with firearms, and I try to respect that, but if I’m at the hair salon and take my jacket off and someone sees my 1911, then too bad. I don’t care one iota if they feel it’s unnecessary. I will not go out of my way to show off, but if they see it, I’m not going to loose any sleep over it.

Now that I’ve gotten all that background out of the way, let’s talk about Tom Palmer. He’s a D.C. Resident currently suing the city for the right to carry his firearm on his person outside his home. It’s a good article and I definitely think it’s worth reading. You know, it’s a sad state of affairs when something that should be a fairly straight forward right is something we must actually bring legal proceedings and fight to be able to do. Why does Tom want the right to do this? Because it already saved his life once.

“We were what they perceived as a couple of faggots, which was the term they used, walking through their neighborhood,” he said. “And it would have been one of those modestly ironic moments if my colleague might have been murdered in a gay bashing, when he was straight.”

The threats were vivid and believable: “We’re going to kill you. They’ll never find your body.”

Palmer told his colleague to run. The thugs chased Palmer, who stopped under a streetlight and pulled out his gun.

“I did not say anything witty or clever,” he recalls. “In the movies, they say something very clever. I just said, ‘If you come closer, I will kill you.’ Very blunt. And they stopped.”

Amazing how that worked. He leveled the playing field and the aggressors here stops. Would pepper spray has been as effective? Who really cares…? No shots were fired and nobody was harmed. As expected the group at Handgun Control Inc (a.k.a The Brady Campaign against Gun Violence – yes they really were called Handgun Control Inc) have offered up their thoughts on the matter.

“To force the general public to be exposed to the risk of loaded guns when they are out with their family in public areas is outrageous and has absolutely nothing to do with the right to defend the home…”

Please see above statement about, “I don’t care one iota how xyz person feels about something that is not harming them.” I personally enjoyed the response to this argument from HCI.

The idea that the right to bear arms is limited to “walking around your house is silly.”

Molon Labe!

Now that it’s done… I’m going to play some STO!

-Jon

Back on Feb 2nd, The US proceeded with a normally scheduled arms shipment to Taiwan. Per the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, we have supplied defensive arms to Taiwan. This of course has rubbed China the wrong way. Now back when this treaty was signed, China’s economy was strong, but still developing. It made sense for them to agree to this since it limited the arms to a major enemy. Now with the economic pressure they could leverage, you see all sorts of objections over the same arm sales we’ve done for 31 yrs, and for which we have never broken that treaty.

Trade relations between the U.S. and China appear to be hitting a rough patch, with China publicly threatening to impose sanctions on U.S. companies participating in the arms sales to Taiwan, leading some observers to express concern over the growing war of words between Washington and Beijing.

Back in Jan, Google refused to abide by the search engine filtering that the chinesse gov’t was mandating. It looked like for once, a corporate entity was standing up to them. That was until China launched a pre-emptive strike against Google. Let’s not mince words. I don’t think anyone has any doubt about who did the attacks. No they didn’t use missiles, bombs, or aircraft carriers…

Google is releasing some information about these attacks to the public. The company says that a minimal amount of user information was compromised, but has come to the alarming conclusion that the attacks were targeting the information of Chinese human rights activists. Google found that these attacks were not just going after Google’s data, but were also targeting at least twenty other major companies spanning sectors including Internet, finance, chemicals, and more. Google has also discovered that phishing attacks have been used to compromise the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists around the world.

“… There is always a way in!!!” (C&C Generals – Chinese hacker unit)

Now of course, the filtering on google’s engine was turned back on. They rolled over and the “attacks” have stopped. Amazing how that works, eh?

Most recently, this past week, Pr Obama met with the Dalai Lama in a very low key and quiet fashion, which was of course followed with another round of protests from China.

President Barack Obama personally welcomed the Dalai Lama to the White House Thursday and lauded his goals for the Tibetan people, but he kept their get-together off-camera and low-key in an attempt to avoid inflaming tensions with China.

At the risk of angering Beijing, Obama did tell the exiled spiritual leader that he backs the preservation of Tibet’s culture and supports human rights for its people. He also gave encouragement to the Dalai Lama’s request for talks with the Chinese government.

Good to see the president has a pair of balls and would keep to his campaign promise of doing “that which was right” even in the face of opposition. I guess he should have amended that to say, “… as long as it doesn’t piss off China”.

At some point, someone is going to have to draw a line in the sand and say no more. The human rights violations, the oppression, and the downright aggression against anything they disagree with at some point will need to be addressed. I just hope something gets done BEFORE China has the power to throw a switch and collapse our economy because we can’t get our $0.15 widgets from them since we have no cost effective domestic production. Why can’t we get effective domestic production? We have labor unions that help drive up the cost of production. We have higher cost of living over here and higher cost of doing business thanks to taxes and other contributing factors. In short, they have us by the short hairs at this point and without a sec of balls, I doubt we’ll do anything to stop it.

Claims on behalf of authorities that naked body scanner images are immediately destroyed after passengers pass through new x-ray backscatter devices have been proven fraudulent after it was revealed that naked images of Indian film star Shahrukh Khan were printed out and circulated by airport staff at Heathrow in London.

This is a flagrant violation of the 4th amendment of the US Constitution, which protects us from unreasonable search and seizure. Metal detectors? OK. Chemical sniffing machines? OK. Dogs? OK. I am not saying we need to eliminate all security measures, but I’m sorry a strip search to fly every time? Where does the line get crossed between protecting ourselves and doing the work of the terrorists ourselves? Seriously? You can’t protect this country by destroying our freedoms and rights. When nobody can be safe on their own person, we’ve lost and they win.

If this ever came down as a mandate in the US like it is abroad I will totally boycott air travel and I would hope others would join me. If it did come down about mandating this, it would be a VERY sad day indeed.

Some passengers at Heathrow and Manchester airports will have to go through full body scanners before boarding their flights under new rules.

It is now compulsory for people selected for a scan to take part, or they will not be allowed to fly.

I’m sorry, but this is effectively “strip or no fly”. Am I the only person creeped out by this? Here are some questions that I have about this. If you were mandated to strip or no fly, what would do? How much safer does this truly make us for cost? Does this violate the 4th amendment of our constitution?

I will only say this. Looking all all the attacks that have happened in the last 10 yrs, would this very expensive technology really have stopped it? It is established that once you implement something like this, it is fairly rare for these types of security measures to be removed.

But five months after the robbery, as Mr. Baez was visiting their Manhattan apartment to collect the mail, a police officer stopped him in the lobby and frisked him, he said. Finding nothing, the officer asked him if he had any drugs or weapons on him. Nervous, he decided to confess: “I just got home-invaded in September and I have a weapon for my protection,” Mr. Baez recalled telling the officer.
He was arrested, and despite having no criminal record, he faced up to three and a half years in prison. Prosecutors offered him a deal of one year if he pleaded guilty, and he accepted. He is to be sentenced Jan. 27.

This is why feel so many of the firearm laws in this country are bogus and the politicians don’t care about you or I. After all, why should they? They usually have protection that carries automatic weapons…

Hey I know who we can all call!!!

Down in the progressive state of MA, even Martha Coakly is telling local LEOs to NOT use the state’s wiretapping law as a justification for arresting people. Here we have the case of Simon Glik who after walking down the street, observes some LEOs pulling a plastic bag out of the mouth of a suspect being a bit on the rough side. I am not saying they were, but he thought so, so he decided to record this event with his cell camera. This promptly landed him in handcuffs and under arrest for illegal electronic surveillance.

“One of the officers asked me whether my phone had audio recording capabilities,’’ Glik, 33, said recently of the incident, which took place in October 2007. Glik acknowledged that it did, and then, he said, “my phone was seized, and I was arrested.’’
The charge? Illegal electronic surveillance.
Jon Surmacz, 34, experienced a similar situation. Thinking that Boston police officers were unnecessarily rough while breaking up a holiday party in Brighton he was attending in December 2008, he took out his cellphone and began recording.
Police confronted Surmacz, a webmaster at Boston University. He was arrested and, like Glik, charged with illegal surveillance.

What do you think about this? Should the “only ones” accumulating evidence be the police? I am not saying we should all be detectives, or put comprehensive camera systems in our cars, but how many of the legal slip ups by people could be avoided if they had another eye on it?