If you have no interest in politics at all, stop reading now and ignore.

I was part of city government for a while.  Not an elected official or anything but I was kinda higher up in the ranks.  I also was involved in a campaign, "support the peeples court!" (I'm AMAZED that site is still up!) and that was fun as well, which takes me to my next issue...ignoring your constituents, which is a fancy way of saying citizens you represent, is really dumb.  Ignoring the ones that are motivated, with blogs, is even worse.

Recently in Ohio, a certain bill was put up, voted on and passed that was very common sense (yes, I read the bill).  I went to review how MY rep voted and was personally offended to find out he voted NO.  Being a curious person, I genuinely wanted to know why, maybe there's something I missed?  I NEVER RECIEVED A REPLY, at all, ever.  He could've literally drove down the street and made a personal visit but I guess he's too busy.  This is overly annoying and downright offensive ...not for the lack of a visit but the lack of a simple email reply.  For verification, here's my email, minus my home address, copy, paste.

from: Jesse Riley
to: district25@ohr.state.oh.us

date: Thu, May 29, 2008 at 2:11 PM
subject: Vote on SB184
mailed-bygmail.com 

Representative Stewart:
 
I just happened to come across the vote for SB184 and was somewhat surprised by your vote.  On paper, 184 (also dubbed "Castle Doctrine") seems to make a lot of sense, your nay vote cast raises questions -- maybe I'm missing something from this bill or a pitfall somewhere that the 23 nay votes might foresee a problem?  Can you please explain your vote?
 
Jesse Riley

I know for an absolute fact gmail addresses get though their servers.  I also know for an absolute fact they have interns to check these emails.  I hope that at some point Dan Stewart finds this and gives me an answer.  Otherwise, I'm still waiting and I've given you MORE than enough time.  (Honestly I don't expect a reply)

Ever since I got my zune, I've subscribed to all kinds of podcasts, one I particularlly enjoy is the 60 second science from Scientific American.  It's good stuff and REALLY lasts 60 seconds (with intro and junk, 1:15).  One that really caught my attention was one regarding Training Scientists to Run for Office.  It's an awesome idea and here's the transcript...

[The following is an exact transcript of this podcast.]

Would America be a better place if more people with science training held elective office?  One organization that thinks so is Scientists and Engineers for America, or SEA.  On May 10th, they’re holding a daylong workshop in Washington, D.C., to teach researchers the nuts and bolts of running for office.  More than 70 attendees have signed up.
 
SEA points out that understanding a lot of today’s most pressing challenges requires a science background. Energy, health care, climate, even general competitiveness are all deeply connected to scientific research and progress.  Even more important may be the general intellectual approach that scientists could bring. The group’s director, Lesley Stone, says, “Scientists and engineers have an appreciation for the kind of evidence-based decision making necessary for tackling our nation’s most pressing problems.”
 
For more information, go to www.Elections.SEforA.org.

--Steve Mirsky 

For those of you who don't know me very well, over the past few years I have come to appreciate the right to bear arms.  I had a friend of mine who grew up with them teach me how to clean them, how to shoot them, how to handle them propertly, how to "check a weapon", shoot safely (I'm not the best shot though...) etc.  I learned how to do things by the book since it -IS- a clearly dangerous device.  Today while at a gun shop, I witnessed something that made me VERY uneasy.  A little background, this place I was at is NOT a dive, not shady, not on any level a place you couldn't take anyone.  It's a general hunting/fishing place.  Also another disclaimer, if you don't care about any of the following topics, ignore this post - guns, laws, government, politics.  Still reading?  Good, I think you'll find this interesting.

In order to obtain a firearm, a background check must be done, and they check for the obvious stuff -- no felony convictions, no mental problems, no domestic violence cases outstanding, no illegal drug use, etc.  This can be done VERY quickly, usually within a few minutes with a call in to the feds.  I use to work closely with the "other end" of law enforcement with my time at the Attorney's Office and I was lucky enough to understand and detect (although this isn't rocket science) those that are under the influence of various controlled substences (crack/cocaine, LSD, X, marijuana, etc) and immediately noticed that one such symptom was being broadcasted by someone across the counter.  No, I'm not kidding, at all.

The person in question had bloodshot eyes, pupils the size of golfballs and slightly ...I wouldn't say frantic but very "switchy" -- he'd been doing crack/cocaine at best 24 hrs ago (probably earlier that morning).  I watched this guy intently, listening to his conversation.  He says his son had taken his other gun, got arrested (hu?) and the police took it and wouldn't give it back until he proved it was purchased legally.  Ok, at this point, if EVERY SINGLE red flag in your head isn't goin off, I can't help you.  He then explains to the clerk, and I can't believe this, that he was serious about buying another gun as well as getting his proof of purchase.  The guy behind the counter showed him a good, well made weapon, at a cost around 600$.  If you've ever looked, 600-800 is right around what you'd expect for a good, quality gun (in this case a brand new Beretta 92 9mm) -- I paid 600 for my first gun (not a Beretta), USED -- he didn't want that.  Then he was shown another, a nice Glock with a price tag around 500-550.  He didn't want that either.  The ...um, clerk pulls out the cheaper gun (I'll refrain from saying what kind, I don't like 'em, I think they're crap) for 350 in a 9mm.  He was more interested. 

Now mind you, during this entire exchange, the clerk is NOT handing the person the gun, at all, he WILL NOT let him touch it which is a clear indication that he (the clerk) has noticed "somethin' aint right" -- every time I, joe citizen, go in and ask to see one, I am presented the piece, regardless of cost, checked (verified no bullets in the gun) and handed over as if it were a priceless piece of jewlery, typically with some discussion of the given clerk's experience or the other clerks in general, safety features, etc.

At this point, I'm very much "not cool" with this particular person.  Even idiot me can pick up this guy is on something and the questionare you MUST fill out asks specifically if you have used something he clearly has (which is a felony!).  I motion one of the other clerks over and express my concern.  Almost unbelieveably, he says "Oh I know, happens all the time, but we can't stop them from buying any gun they want, it's their right just as much as it is yours, and we aren't cops -- we just can't do anything about it, we'd get the pants sued off of us".

-long pause-

<Sigh> He's right.  So on monday I'm thinkin' I need to make a few phone calls, most noteably my friend thats a judge, see what she thinks.  I know there's some circumstances where this guy could've had a good reason for it.  Regardless, I, joe citizen, don't completely believe he'd be honest on that questionare.

** Update ** 4/13/2008

Got a comment on my blog from "The F.B.I." with the address given of info@fbi.gov but there's a problem with it -- 1, the IP comes back to France ...sorry, that doesn't make me feel its more authentic (using the onion aren't ya?), 2nd, it refers to internet crime and not ...um, real crime so for now, I'm going to leave it in the comment bin until I get a bit more info on this.  So if you're reading this, use the contact page (link's up top) and drop me a line, let's talk.