It’s no wonder our governmental representation is so deficient when one considers the kind of response I got today from my state senator here in Idaho.  The piont I hope to make here is the senator's apparent inability to grasp the point of my initial missive.  You’ll find the entire email exchange – no edits or omissions – below:

The original message I sent: 

Dear Senator Goedde:
 
It is important that we all take animal cruelty seriously. People who deliberately hurt animals often turn that violence against the community, with family members such as children or spouses especially at risk.
 
No one should deliberately torture an animal and get away with just a slap on the wrist. I urge you to pass H.B. 650, legislation pending before you to increase the penalties for animal cruelty in our state to a felony upon a third offense.
 
Please consider these points:
 
- Our current animal cruelty law is only a misdemeanor, no matter how severely the animal was tortured or how it was killed.  - We are one of only three states that have failed to make deliberate animal cruelty a felony offense. We should recognize how preventing animal abuse can prevent other forms of violence.  - In addition, organized cockfighting is only a misdemeanor. All animal fighting is wrong and should be a felony
offense in certain circumstances. Under the current provisions, the penalties do not act as a form of deterrence, but are absorbed by animal fighters as a cost of doing business.
 
Please support passage of House Bill 650 when it comes before the Senate--and thank you for passing S.B. 1303. Both bills will prevent future suffering.
 
"The greatness of any society, any nation, and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. "  In order to truly be "pro-life", one must also consider valuable the lives of all sentient beings.
 
Thank you for your consideration and hopefully your support.
 
Sincerely,

 
Rick Lucke

The entire response I received from my senator: 

Rick - The Senate already passed an animal cruelty bill and sent it to the House. Do you know the differences between the two? John Goedde

My response to that, uh …, response (?). 

Dear Senator Goedde: 

Only one conclusion can be logically drawn from your response to me in the matter of H.B. 650. Consider the following quotation from my original message: 

Please support passage of House Bill 650 when it comes before the Senate--and thank you for passing S.B. 1303. Both bills will prevent future suffering. 

Now, consider the entirety of your response to me: 

Rick - The Senate already passed an animal cruelty bill and sent it to the House. Do you know the differences between the two? John Goedde 

Because H.B. 650 is currently under review in the Senate, and it is a stronger bill than S.B. 1303, my purpose in writing you was to urge you to support the stronger of the two bills. Perhaps the question that must be asked is, “John, the Senate will be considering H.B. 650. Do you know the difference between H.B. 650 and S.B. 1303?” 

Of course, your response to me insists upon a number of other questions regarding your qualifications for Senatorial representation of the citizenry that elects you. 

The disrespect shown me in this response disallows you any reference such as “Honorable”, as in the heading above. More importantly, this response also indicates that you either did not read the missive I sent, indicating an evasion of responsible representation, or that you have difficulty processing information accurately, which in reasonable terms should disqualify you for the position to which you now pretend. Since processing information accurately is clearly an important aspect of any position of authority involved in making important policy decisions, your response suggests your qualification to even do the job for which you have been elected is severely deficient. 

To reiterate my original intent; please support H.B. 650. Because H.B. 650 clarifies a number of possible uncertainties that may create difficulty in enforcement of the law, it is a worthy consideration. 

Sincerely, 

Rick Lucke

Rick - When I get an email which is a form request (I received the exact same thing from several people), I always wonder if the sender knows anything about the issue he or she supports. I meant no disrespect by asking the questions but it is obvious, by your response, that you can't tell me. As you know, I voted to support the Senate bill and probably will support its counterpart from the House but I have not read the bill at this point. The bill is in a committee where I am not a member; if and when it gets to the floor for consideration, I will decide how to vote. There is no way a legislator can read the hundreds of bills that are printed but not before them for consideration. John Goedde

John,

In your initial response, you could have simply stated what you have stated here, which is that you haven’t read the bill but will probably support it.  Had you done that, none of this back-n-forth would be necessary and you might have even garnered a little extra support.  Your failure to do so exhibits compromised judgment on your part that deserves concern for any future decisions for which you may be responsible.

I read the text of both bills on the Idaho government Web site;  any difference between what I saw there and what may be currently “in committee” does not render me deserving of your disrespect, which you continue even in this latest missive.  First, you accuse me of having no knowledge, then suggest I did not answer your question, which I did, albeit in general terms, which is sufficient for the intention of this discussion had you any knowledge of that of which you infer my ignorance, then you amazingly admit that YOU have not read H.R. 650.

Do you seriously expect I would accept this latest response as a form of respect when all you have expressed is annoyance with participation by your constituents?  Really?  You obviously wouldn’t know whether I could tell you the differences, anyway, since you haven’t read the bill.  And given that both bills are relatively short, you might have at least scanned the online version before making such an ill-informed and defensive response.

Your feeble defensiveness only further discredits you as a worthy representative.  You appear cowardly, insolently insecure, and incapable of admitting a mistake, which is something that all too often occurs in American politicians and which leads us into downfalls like those we currently face as a nation. This exchange indicates your concern for neither my vote, nor for representing your constituents who attempt to participate in the political process. This exchange with you is the most worrisome direct interaction I've ever encountered with a governmental representative on any level.

Rick Lucke