> I gained an amazing vocabulary of dirty words and depraved acts from printed material when I was a kid, but I didn't know how to properly apply them til my dad taught me.

Hmm....how closely did your dad supervise you in this training regimen you describe? ;)

It's called the Puritan Heritage. Sad but true: check this brief summary out.

Europe will never get it; it's too ingrained in American culture that violence is OK but sex is not.

There is one benefit, however. Judging by the horribly embarrassing percentage of America that is obese or otherwise unsuitable for being seen naked, I am actually more comfortable with how we do things over here.

I especially don't like the "whores in windows" in Amsterdam, although prostitution is legal in a small part of the U.S. so I can't really complain about it being legal over there. Sex toys in windows, more of a gray area. I'd rather not see them but that's just my opinion.

> The reason for private citizens to own guns is so we can execute corrupt police, tyrannical senators and presidents, and (oh yeah, way way down on the list) muggers.

What are you, your own lynch mob? The constitution also provides that no person shall be deprived of life or liberty without due process of law. Granted, the 5th Amendment has been read to apply to the government and not to private actors. However, certainly an elected official would be entitled to due process of law from any transitional government purporting to replace his own, regardless of how severely the new government might disagree with his or her policies or acts while in office. Even Saddam received a trial. Even the Nuremburg defendants received a trial. Even Civil War prisoners in the U.S. were treated as prisoners of war with the rights that that entailed at the time, rather than being executed for treason as would have been expressly permitted by the constitution. Entire books have been written about victor's justice and whether it can ever be fair-- or perceived to be fair. What is certainly not fair is for a private citizen or group of private citizens to decide on his/her/their own that a government official deserves to be executed for official acts.

Yes, I would have a problem with someone unilaterally executing Hugo Chavez, even though his regime does not afford the very due process he would receive. I happen to believe it was a huge mistake to execute Bin Laden when he clearly could have been captured alive and interrogated concerning al Qaeda's strategic plans, and then tried and convicted under our very own system of laws, and then put to death for his terrible crimes.

Regardless of any disagreement we may have over Bin Laden, who in any event was not an elected official, it is inconsistent with the principles expressed in the U.S. constitution for lynch mobs to simply execute public officials whom they believe to be corrupt.

Muggers are fair game though. Do you see a difference between killing a mugger in self-defense and executing an elected official? I do, I really do, and I hope that other gun owners do as well.

> So then, what is the governments motive for pursuing this?

It's the same motive for the "security theater" conducted by the TSA on a daily basis affecting millions of legitimate travelers: show the good monkeys what happens to the bad monkeys. It's evident from the design of the system itself, especially the fact that they conduct enhanced pat downs in full view of other travelers with no privacy at all.

> If the government can make an example of this one case, they have just changed the mindset of millions of people.

You're right. Psychology, man.

Well, I'm not a huge fan of either party, but after carefully considering who I would prefer in the Oval Office, I've decided to vote for our current President. So, I raised $600 for the campaign through a "grassroots" fundraising page. Guess what? Now I get a spam email almost every single day with a 1-click instant donation link. I've already told them I'm tapped out and I won't be raising any further funds for them, but I offered to make calls or pay visits to people if they would simply give me a list of people to contact. They can't be bothered to even respond. I took the further step of opting out of all but the most "important" messages, but that hasn't stopped the flood of spam that I get.

The following email exchange is reflective of the Democrats' spam:

--
From: Bill Clinton
Subject: Meeting you
Date: May 24, 2012 8:49:09 AM PDT
To: Andrew Watters
Reply-To: Rufus Gifford

Andrew --

I've been in President Obama's shoes before -- less than six months to go before an election to let you finish what you started. It was tough enough back then, but this election is going to be tougher.

We're facing a tidal wave of anonymous, unlimited spending. The other side has pledged to throw more than 1 billion dollars into tearing down our president.

It's unprecedented.

Fortunately, so is the grassroots organization you're building.

Pitch in what you can today to strengthen the campaign -- and you'll be automatically entered to join me and President Obama in New York City, with the campaign covering airfare and accommodations.

By clicking here, your saved credit card will be charged immediately:

QUICK DONATE: $56

            QUICK DONATE: $35

            QUICK DONATE: $50

            QUICK DONATE: $100

            QUICK DONATE: $250

Or donate another amount.

If our opponent succeeds, so much of what we've fought so hard for will be rolled back. Health care reform -- which many presidents, including me, tried to pass and couldn't -- will be gone. Same goes for the opportunity for millions more Americans to afford to go to college, and a growing economy that works for middle-class families.

Our opponent is actually advertising a more extreme version of the policies that got us in trouble in the first place: policies that will leave us with more debt, weaker regulations on risky investments, and fewer jobs.

All of that's at stake between now and November, but here's why I'm feeling good about our chances: I know people like you have the President's back.

And I can't wait to meet you. I hope you'll give it a shot:

https://donate.barackobama.com/Presidents

Thanks, and good luck,

Bill Clinton

--
From: Andrew Watters
Subject: Re: Meeting you
Date: May 24, 2012 12:44:19 PM PDT
To: Rufus Gifford

Thanks Mr. President, I actually met you once in Hawaii, and several years back I worked for one of your big time fundraisers, ___________,
of _________, CA.

I'm sorry to say that I can't afford to contribute any more money to President Obama's campaign. However, I remain available to assist in the
President's fundraising efforts in some capacity, as indicated in my prior emails including the one attaching my resume. What would be great is
simply a list of people in my area whom I could call or drop in on.

Thank you for your consideration sir.

Andrew Watters
-

No response, despite name-dropping a well-known powerhouse fundraiser who has many pictures of himself with President Clinton from the 1992 campaign, held a fundraiser with candidate Edwards in 2004 at his home, was on the boat with candidate Kerry in the 2004 campaign, etc. In addition to noting that yes, I have actually met Bill Clinton. Despite this, I got another spam email a few days later, also from "Bill Clinton."

If they cared about anything beyond triggering my impulse to donate money, they would have one of their many, many staffers simply say "thank you for raising the amount you could, and we'll consider how you might be able to contribute in other ways, especially given your prior work with _______ who is a major fundraiser for us." Literally 10 seconds of typing. That might even encourage me to actually donate more money while they are "considering" what I might be able to do for them, lol.

I guess they really don't care, which seems at odds with how close this election is going to be.

Email to most State politicians is pointless. Between Nigerian scammers, interest groups, astroturfing, spam, automated "news alerts" from whoever, links to blogs, etc., the signal gets lost in the noise. Send a fax or a letter instead, that way an actual person will read your correspondence and appropriately categorize it. Or try calling them.

Case example: in the early to mid 2000's, my State Senator turned Congressional representative, Jackie Speier (D--Hillsborough, CA), was very responsive to actual letters and either dictated or at least approved multiple responses. The level of detail was, I must admit, incredible. OCD? Probably, but I'd rather have an OCD politician who responds to inquiries or policy comments than not. My current Federal rep in a different district was fairly responsive to use of his online email form, in which he provides categories (help with an agency, policy comments, etc.). Calling him re SOPA also worked.