Steve

I don't know the intracacies of the welfare system but just my guess is why would an illegal immigrant family risk exposure by applying for welfare? Plus, its not your father's welfare system any longer. Its much harder to get on and stay on thanks to legislation in the Clinton era. If you're a legal immigrant on a green card, welfare makes it a bit harder for you to finally get to be a citizen. Decades ago immigration was only concerned with whether you were a commie or anarchist. Now they look at your financial situation. You can't get citizenship if you owe taxes and are not paying on some plan to repay it. its a much tougher process. Just my guess but the whole 'those illegals are mostly on welfare' argument on the face of it doesn't seem legit. Maybe it is, but my guess is it isn't.

Most of 'us' (Americans) don't know about this and pretty much all of the rest don't care or are indifferent. These laws are only waiting for the right event. They will be dragged out by some President one day who has bad intentions. They won't be repealed. The irony is that the founders routinely said that the people should revolt if the government becomes tyrannical but the government has put in place, laws, structures, etc. to protect itself if it does become tryrannical. At the end of the day, as I keep repeating, the real problem isn't the government but the people. You get the government you deserve..collectively.

Some real, tangible, relative news for once. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/51498128/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/t/are-all-porn-sites-really-riddled-malware/?lite=&lite=obnetwork study on porn sites and malware. I know I'm a victim, are you?

I don't care who reports as long its relevant and in the spirt of true journalism. I've heard that professors of journalism at universities are split over what is 'true' journalism. Blogs, etc. Who ever reports the truth is a journalist in my book. Its actually the blogosphere that reports a lot of the truth or at least the wider context of stuff. Especially in politics. Both the conservative and liberal blogs explain the real contexts of stuff.

What happened to the crusaders at newspapers? Reporters and papers who built their reputation on exposing frauds, etc.? We don't seem to have that anymore. It just seems that major papers are slanted to either political party these days. The last crusading show I recall was 60 minutes but I haven't seen that in yearrs and don't know if they were that way. They always seem to expose anyone, no respect of person, position or party. Don't know if they have changed now. As a kid I used to cringe when Mike Wallace or one of the others would ask the million dollar question and the person would do the 'umm' , 'ahh' and try to escape either physically or shut down verbally. lol...those were the days.

You get a better sense of Amercan media/news bias when you are outside the country. I often get a more balanced, informative perspective from British news reporting on an American issue. I also like Al jazeera (spelling?) sometimes. They get a bad rep in America but they often have a diversified, well informed panel and they are not liked by the middle east governments. That alone is an endorsement. Most national news are biased for their own country's interest. The alternative media or outside the country often tells the 'real' story or at least puts it in its proper context.

Obama's pardons on the way out the door will be interesting. The last few Presidents had some questionable ones. Clinton pardoning Marc Rich was one of the worse but I guess not as bad as the elder Bush pardoning anyone connected to Iran-Contra.

Going back to guns and especially inner city gun crimes. I find that a lot of this stuff is not using the media properly and not exposing this stuff on relevant shows. Don't know what the problem is in doing so, its a no brainer. It would gather lots of support from all strata of society. The left would like it and the suburban, non urban folks would applaud and support ANY action that keeps inner city young people from having access to illegal guns. The fight for proper gun policies is enact the doable ones first. The kinds of policies that everyone would support and the NRA would look silly for being against such as the new law that says if you buy a gun for a person who shouldn't have one its a federal crime. Curtailing guns to the inner city is a no brainer. ATF has a somewhat bad reputation since Ruby Ridge and the Davidian thingy. However, the administration can change some of that by saying it is going to restructure and re-organize the department into fighting specific issues like the urban gun access, appoint a person who has the reputation of being pro gun ownership but willing to enforce the laws on the books and then they can fund it and if any pol opposes it they can be labled accordingly to one who blocks ways to cut down on the high inner city crime rate.

The stock market hit a record high recently. Make of that what you will.

Bipartisan agreement on it being a federal crime to buy a gun in your name and give it to someone who shouldn't have one like an ex-con. that is such a no brainer I don't know why its even debatable. Stopping illegal guns from flooding the inner city is very doable from a law enforcement viewpoint as well but it won't happen because the NRA, the gun manufacturerers puppets have their pols blocking the ATF. That is a personal issue to me having seen how prevalent guns were in the inner city. I did some research and found that there is a concerted effort and syndicate that gets these guns to the inner city. The gun manufacturers don't have an issue with that since the guns have to be bought in the first place. Stopping the flow of guns won't stop inner city crime but all these murder capital headlines could be vastly reduced if we cut the guns off. Its so easy to get a gun off the street in the urban areas. This should be a no brainer issue. We complain about the murder rate in the urban areas and its criminal, pardon the pun, that we don't stop the flow of guns when its fairly easy to infiltrate these illegal gun dealers who supply them. In other news. Two phrases I can live the rest of my life without ever hearing again 1. fiscal cliff and 2. sequestration.

Good article. Not unlike others we have read. The real issue is this. Those in the know, know why its abhorrently high, the problem is no one in the government can tackle it because the people (the entire medical industry from drug companies to HMOs to doctors and nurses) that make their living off it has too much power in the government and has the populace fooled. The old and tired 'best medical care in the world' keeps trotted out as if America is the only one that can provide good medical care. This is told to a populace where the vast majority of people have never traveled across the country much less to a foreign country. This lie would never work in Europe where people regularly travel across their borders because of ease of access. Another factor that will impede any future reformation was the fight over Obamacare. I'm not here to say it was good. I'm just saying that the right co-opted the issue to gain political points and in doing so, stunted any future reforms to medical care. Reform, massive reform is needed. Now its going to be harder. Political expediency exceeded common sense. They didn't want to work with Obama. Even though they knew medical reform is a crisis with almost 2/3 of all bankruptcies due to medical costs. That number means crisis. The medical industry through the politicians it owns has also successfully brainwashed us that any sort of federal or national program is akin to socialism. While I typically don't like big federal programs because they almost always far exceed the estimated cost. There are cost overruns because the pols load it up with goodies for the industries involved. The Dems are not innocent either. They are paid off by unions and there are plenty of unions tied to the medical industry. The sad fact is there is no political will to do it. Nothing will happen. If any congressperson or family member gets the same malady that afflicts the family in the article they will be well taken care of. There is no personal exposure for them so they don't have a personal stake in the issue. The only thing any of us can do is pray you or yours doesn't get seriously ill and save enough so that one day you can move to a country that has good, affordable care that or become a billionaire.

My greatest fear are these precedents. Obama killing American citizens without due process. The actions of Bush. The complete violation of civil liberties and constitional rights regarding privacy and such. The problem is this. You will get bad Presidents. At times a Nixon or Bush gets in the White House and they can and will use precedence. That is the big danger. Its more difficult for a President to do something that hasn't been done before. Its an easy 'out' to say that they are just doing what has been before. Imagine a Nixon these days with the things that have already been done and are still being done? Scary shit. Even the 'good' Presidents may do it but eventually and inevitably you do get a President who got us fooled in the election or changes and that is the real danger.

So. Obama is sending drones to Niger. He seems to love that thing. No risk to military lives. Deadly. I don't approve of the killing of Americans even if they are bad guys. Don't get me wrong. I won't lose a bit of sleep if some traiterous bastard who became a citizen and swore an oath decides to work with the enemy. Fck him and the boat he came in on but at the end of the day its still wrong of us to do that. I've heard that Presidents go into the White House thinking they'll do things on the up and up and after seeing the raw intel and many, many dangerous plans in action both foreign and domestic that they quickly change their tune. Word is its scary sh*t. Obama seemed an idealist when he became a politician. Realpolitik, corporate money, etc. has made him into just another politician. Yeah, he may try and get some things done that are idealistic but given the choice, he'll choose pragmatism over idealism. On the home front, the Republican party leadership is in the midst of a budding civil war. The tea party types are just bad for business. Locally they can win, even statewide depending on the state (bible belt, rural states) but nationally they are just bad for the party. They seem to offend or have some issue that grates any who isn't a straight, religious white male. The Democrats have the left, center and even some issues right of center. The Republicans are getting marginalized farther right. I personally like it if both parties are viable. The checks and balance system works. Then you have guys like Graham and McCain trying to stay relevant. Hagel is a non issue that was made into an issue. Rice was a non issue made into an issue.

Here is my suggestion for the cost of getting the documents. A waiver of the fees to anyone who is getting the documents to vote. Or a waiver to those who are unemployed or elderly or below a certain income level. Make it easy. Make it easily affordable to those who can pay and make if free for those who can't. Make it doable by mail.

As for the voter ID issue. I'm not against having an ID. What I am against is HOW they are going on about it. Its disenfranchizing people. Have people fill out a form AFTER they vote. Get them an ID for next time since voter fraud is not an issue. Also, provide the IDs to the unemployed, elderly free. Stop making harder for people to vote.

Its amazing the amount of public sympathy for Dorner in LA even though he killed innocent people. Part of the reason is the LAPD themselves. They do not have a good reputation in Los Angeles and by extension this includes law enforcement in surrounding areas (LA County sherriffs, Inglewood PD, Santa Monica PD, etc.). They seem to try and outdo each other. Law enforcement in the greater Los Angeles area is a revenue generator. They will write up anyone for the mildest things. What used to be a simple warning years ago is now written up and can cost you time and money. I recall late at night a cop sitting in the parking lot next to me watching me come out of a 24hr market. Forgot to turn on my headlights when I started my car and instead of reminding me to do it followed me out of the parking lot until I got down the street to stop me and write me a ticket. I was wondering why he was following me out of the parking lot. Was I wrong? Definitely. Was it chicken shit of a cop to do that instead of just telling me before I left the premises? Definitely. Its the kind of thing they do and its often against middle class, no one is immune. They camp out near night club areas and write tickets on weekend nights. They camp out near schools and universitities and do the same. Any and all minor infractions and the city raises the rates on those. I'm not talking $25 bucks or so but its usually closer to $100 and some require a courtroom appearance like speeding or whatever which requires a day off from work. No one has love for the police. They target everyone. They are also known for corruption. The vice, narc squads especially. They will lie for each other in an instant. A few cases of outright lies have been unearthed. Are there some good cops out there? Certainly, the majority are. However the good ones have been given a mandate to write as many tickets as they can to bolster their rating. That said, Dorner is a complete nutcase.

We are speaking honestly here. These iD laws are only proposed by Republicans and a few of them swing states. They are proposing a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Lets just be frank and honest. Not that Dems haven't had their shares of laws and such that benefit them as well. Voter fraud isn't an issue. Bottom line. There was some stat that getting hit by lightening has a more likely chance of occurring. Why propose it? They also add to the cost of an election. Not that money should be an issue. Its the same with the purging of criminals from voter rolls that have proven to alienate more legitimate voters than prevent ex-cons from voting and ex-cons voting to any degree that requires the monies to hire companies to purge rolls has never been proven to be a problem. Lets just be frank and honest about the why. I support Republicans in some things. As far right as they've been they're the only party of the two taking a serious position about the deficit and the size of the goverment. They are a good check against the Dems in that regard. My suggestion for the voter ID issue is to do it backwards. Give an ID or create a quick application at the voting booth AFTER they have voted. That way the elderly, minorities, etc. can have one for next time. Since fraud isn't an issue, do it that way for the future.

My view of what a tyrannical government is and our right to remove it would be a goverment where we can no longer remove the governing peoples by right of vote. Bush 2000 probably comes to closest but wouldn't meet my test. I would be opposed to remove any President or elected official now because the people still have the power to remove them. I know districts are gerrymandered, etc. but the fact remains we as a collective have voted these people in and continue to vote them in With regards to the Chicago voting fraud of yesteryear, voting IDs would have done no good. Daley controlled the voting booths. In those days they simply dumped or gave more votes or allowed people to vote more. Not possible these days. The justice department, the electronic age, etc. renders that infinitely harder to do. The problem is the people NOT the government. We as a collective have allowed it. In a Republic the people get the government they deserve.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57511312/study-voter-id-law-would-exclude-up-to-700000-young-minorities/ Study: Voter ID law would exclude up to 700,000 young minorities http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/New-State-Voting-Laws.htm New state laws dealing with the right to vote enacted since the 2008 election may cause more than 5 million eligible voters to find it significantly harder or even impossible to cast ballots in 2010, according to a new report from the non-partisan Brennan Center for Justice. http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21565259-discouraging-citizens-voting-not-good-democracy-counting-voters-counting-votes According to the Brennan Centre, a policy think-tank and advocacy group, around 11% of all American voters lack government-issued photo-ID. That percentage is far higher among minorities, students, the poor, the disabled and the elderly

What's wrong with IDs right? Absolutely nothing. My main issue however is this. The reasoning behind it is to stop voter fraud. A non existent problem according ot the stats. The result of the ID laws, which has been proven, is that it reduced the number of people who would have actually voted. Its insiduous. The reason the ID laws are being enacted is to reduce the number of people voting, specifically voters who usually vote for the opposition. There is no other reason. Its so completely unAmerican to make a law for that purpose. So, while I like it in theory, I don't in practice. I would love for full participation in an election even if I knew from polling data my guy would not win. I truly would want that. i want a full participatory electorate. Because my hope is that they will eventually be an informed electorate. In time, we will be a better, stronger nation if more people participated in our Republic.

Unfortunately no, not for the most part. Human nature is human nature. We will always find something to disagree on and always find something different and instead of celebrating that difference as a species history has taught us we fear or hate those differences. Doesn't matter if its physical (race) or not (religion), as a general rule we do that to each other. I recall the movie and the book 'Contact' and in the book the aliens thought we were overdo for exterminating each other. That given our history and species its a wonder we haven't blown each other up and some other species emerges and takes over. As a species it may be a matter of when not if we end up killing each other off in some manner or form (war, pestilence, we develop some sort of biotechnical germ and end ourselves, global warming that we initiate, influenza). In all liklihood it won't be natural (asteroid impact, etc.)

Blacks and mainly Mexicans dont get along in LA. Its actually different in the Bay area and San Diego. They get along there. Latinos comprise the prison population in power now and its all down to numbers. They often start riots in prisons to show the Blacks who is in control. In the past, Black gang members of different sets (groups) like bloods and crips didnt socialize and had to be separated now, all the black gangs cling together for self preservatioin and protection because of the sheer numbers of the Latinos. Its primarily the LA mexican gangsters. Non mexican inmates from El Salvador and other countries dont like or get along with the LA Mexcian gangs but they have the numbers . Very different than how I grew up, we got along very well with the Puerto Ricans and later the Dominicans with a few Cubans scattered about. Its not only Compton but Watts, traditionally known as the Black ghetto of LA is now majority latino. South Central is mostly latino. The only 'Black' neighborhoods are the middle class ones in Windsor Hills,etc that are near South Central and those are actually being re-gentrified by young, white, liberals who are priced out of the white neighborhoods. The homes in these Black middle class areas are very nice, much cheaper and safe. The cops don't let anything happen in these areas, there are many neighborhood associations. I lived in one such neighborhood with my uncle in Inglewood. He told me to come to the next neighborhood cook out so they can see my face so when I walk around no one calls the cops.

Been the same about the election since it started. The top 4 or 5 swing states are the most important. 40 of the 50 states are pretty much decided. The electoral worked when the country was founded. What the founders didn't assume was that we would form political parties. As for the Republican changes, I'd be just as vehementally against if it were Democrats. It leaves voters disefranchised and their votes counted less. The present system does it as well but this proposal exasperates the problem. A viable third party won't make it unless one of two things happen. Its truly grassroots and takes hold or is financed by one or more the uber rich such as Perot's Reform Party. We saw how the Republicans tried to keep Johnson and others off the ballot in swing states. It will happen again. Some Dems will try the same. The powers that and this not only includes both parties but the lobbyists dont want it The last thing the lobbyists want is to have to try and bribe a third party and see their power diluted. And they certainly don't want a 3rd party with some integrity. They can't be bought. Flash is right that both parties have been guilty of manipulation in the past, Democrats in big urban centers in particular. However, the past doesn't excuse the actions of the present and right now its mainly the Repubicans doing the most repugnant, anti American things. Also, you have a bunch of house Republicans who have this Don Quixote, Mr. Smith Goes To Washington mentality to save the country and the Congress and in reality all they are doing is just opposing ANYTHING that goes against their ideology with no room for compromise. The government simply can't run without some compromise. They are used to weak willed Dems in the past (and present) and think if they are obstinate enough they will eventually get their way and spin it in the press that they are saving America from itself.

I think we ought to re-think the electoral college system. However, the motives behind these proposed changes by some Republican led states isn't to modernize the process. Its to rig elections in thier favor. First gerrymandering districts, voter registration laws to reduce Dem votes and now this. The Republican party, at least a signficant number of the party and their leadership, who claim to be what America is about truly are the most un-American. http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/25/politics/electoral-college/?hpt=po_c1

Obama is gonna fck Wall Street for switching sides. First time ever, a prosecutor is nominated to be in charge of the SEC. A prosecutor with experience going after Wall Street malfeasance. Its gonna get interesting. http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/01/24/mary-jo-white-SEC-chairman/ Things are going to get real interesting. I think we are going to see a more liberal/progressive Obama.