Blog-IT-o ergo sum

	6/23/2003

Public Service

Our 6th District old school congressman Howard Coble, whom common citizenry can run into at the local Biscuitville or Carolina BBQ joint is one of the more accessible congressman around, but you would not know it from trying to find his stealth district office almost a mile north of downtown Greensboro. Good thing we were sure his address was 2102 B North Elm Street. I am certainly impressed that Howard has not wasted our tax dollars promoting his name with big signage, but he may just have gone a bit too Zen on us to be convenient. (He definitely is not wasting our money on his web site either.) I would think a small name plate over the address plaque "2102 B" should not be objectionable even coblegsooffice for his libertarian minded constituents.

---editor's note to would-be protesters: Bring a sign that says, "This is Howard Coble's office" if you expect people to figure out why you are marching in front of a brokerage firm.

Howard was not in at 4:00pm on a sunny Friday afternoon (the first day of sun in a week) but we can proudly report that two of his staff were still diligently at work servicing the public. Unfortunately though, while our greeter was quite polite, we received a surprisingly cool reception from our "Community Liaison," Jan Scott. This after my cohort and I announced we were dropping off 40 signed letters requesting Congressman Coble resist the effort to have the United States rejoin UNESCO after a welcome 18 year absence.

Jan said she didn't do legislative work. But, she did agree that their office could send our letters and information on to Washington for us. We tried to take a picture of us handing the letters over for our fans back home, but Jan said "I don't do pictures. That's for Howard." (This must not fall under the job description of the taxpayer financed position of "Community Liaison" we figured and so we did not press the issue.) Jan did go out of her way though to note that some of the unsealed envelops did not contain return addresses without which, "just like on e-mails without mailing addresses" we could not expect a reply. We assured her though that the addresses were indeed written on the letters themselves.

This exchange and Jan's demeanor inspired me to inquire why I had not received a response to my e-mail which I had sent many weeks ago with a return address asking for Howard's official comment on the Japanese internment remark. It was sent in the hope of not having to rely on what I read second hand in the papers. As a non-legislative issue deemed under her purview I guess, Jan was quick to reply, "There is not going to be a response. The official comment is, 'no comment'." "The matter is a dead issue, no further action," I asked? "Yes," she said.

Well yes, wistfully dead for Jan who probably had to endure the protest outside her office last week by some local and imported Muslim hooligans who have so far escaped deportation or incarceration, but how can I now let the matter drop when I am told to my face, without even an attempt at an affected Italian accent, "fagetta bout it." I am thinking I need a new letter now taking a different tack. Perhaps something simple like:

Dear Howard,

Could you tell me if you agree or disagree with the following statement:

"It is within the Constitutional power of the Federal Government to imprison innocent US citizens if it is deemed to be in their best interest."

Sincerely,

Jim Capo

11:14:14 AM

comment []