New State of Calif Web Site re Police

[Tetge]

There are a lot of statistics and graphs and comparisons and data on this new government web site. Sort of interesting: http://openjustice.doj.ca.gov/

[jhwalker]

I wonder if Kamala included a tab on the Masonic Fraternal Police Department. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m ... story.html

[xbacksideslider]

Openness is good but when the state is deciding and controlling what is open and what isn't, it is suspect.
They make decisions on what stats to keep and what stats to not keep.
Censorship by omission is still censorship.
For examples, stats on how many crimes committed by illegals and what percent of illegals occupy our jails are not kept.
That is a form of censorship, by government, about what government is doing or not doing.
The data is not available and citizens making inquiry are denied access to the data.
That is a 1st Amendment violation - by the Left.

[SonicVenum]

"Illegals"... on its own, such an innocuous word, but in my head, I hear it with the vitriol that usually accompanies it. As the child of two "illegals" that are now US citizens, I can't help but wince a little when I hear it or read it. I'm sure many people that use it, usually when describing how these "illegals" have taken jobs, or otherwise destroyed this great country, are not racists. I mean that with no sarcasm. I'm sure they really aren't racist. Prejudiced or maybe bigoted, possibly, but not racist.


Funny tangent to my tangent... I was speaking with my wife about our ancestry. I'm first generation on both sides, as I stated earlier. My wife, on the other hand, is third generation on her maternal grandmother's side, fourth generation on her maternal grandfather's side (from Italy), and on her paternal side, she may very well be native. It seems her family came from New Mexico and West Texas, so it's very likely they never crossed the border at all. There's a saying for us Mexican-American's in California, "We didn't cross the border, the border crossed us!" Well, for my wife's father's family, it's actually true!

[jhwalker]

"As the child of two "illegals" that are now US citizens," Juan, if your parents are now US citizens then it seems to me that they followed the path, spent energy and time to become citizens. So they are NOT illegal, they are legal. I (geezer that I am) view them differently and give them credit for what they did. How do they feel about the folks who will not put in the time and energy? I still see a difference between legal and illegal -- pretty much across the board. This is a really complex topic, and one that I try stay open-minded on, but if there is no difference between legal and illegal, then why would anyone make the effort to do "the right thing"? It is complex.

[SonicVenum]

No, they did not follow the legal path, as it was, when they entered this country. They both got here through illegal means, but the amnesty program of the '80s created legal channels that allowed them to become citizens. My point is, just like any other group of people, those who come here illegally are a mixed bag of wonderful, and terrible. Unlike what the hairpiece running for president says, the majority or not criminals, rapists, or leeches on society. We can't sit here, in a country built on fantastic ideas and horrific atrocities alike, and pretend to have a moral superiority over those not following the expensive and convoluted paths to the "land of milk and honey."

I agree with you that those that want to come here, and contribute nothing to society, are a waste of space, but that is true of those born and raised here as well. What I would like to see is the spotlight be put on what's really ailing this country... corporate greed. Rein that in quite a bit, and I bet our country recovers a lot faster than if we got rid of all illegal immigrants, or cut off welfare, or cut taxes, or whatever other bright idea the far right has.

[Tetge]

If they violated the rules and snuck into the US, we have a term for those people, which is illegal aliens. So, trying to say that it is OK, doesn't make any sense if one considers the existing law. So, arrest them all and send them back to where they came from. Also, I don't think that their children, if they have some in the US, should be automatically citizens. But, there is also a law that grants this, and, of course, the illegals want us to abide by that law and ignore the laws on immigration. But, Sarah said even more, since she would require everyone to speak American. Now, that's a fine idea and it would make it easy to deport even more undesirables. I think Donald liked Sarah's attitude so much that he said that he will give her a spot in his administration after he wins in a landslide.

Anyway, the new approach to handling the illegal's issue should be retroactive, and Juan should be deported for sure, even if he can speak American. I was going to stay out of this political discussion, but................

[03_SONIC_BLUR]

If they violated the rules and snuck into the US, we have a term for those people, which is illegal aliens. So, trying to say that it is OK, doesn't make any sense if one considers the existing law. So, arrest them all and send them back to where they came from. Also, I don't think that their children, if they have some in the US, should be automatically citizens. But, there is also a law that grants this, and, of course, the illegals want us to abide by that law and ignore the laws on immigration. But, Sarah said even more, since she would require everyone to speak American. Now, that's a fine idea and it would make it easy to deport even more undesirables. I think Donald liked Sarah's attitude so much that he said that he will give her a spot in his administration after he wins in a landslide.

Anyway, the new approach to handling the illegal's issue should be retroactive, and Juan should be deported for sure, even if he can speak American. I was going to stay out of this political discussion, but................

Free Shrek!!!

As a second gen American, a descendant of legal immigrants who followed the law, spent the time and money, I am annoyed at those who take advantage. Compare America's stance on illegal immigration (Ok, if you can come up with another phrase that is more palatable, go ahead and use it, but words that mean the same thing are words that mean the same thing) with that of Mexico's, or any of the Central or South American countries.

A friend and former co-worker who came here legally, got his citizenship and swore the oath gets really pissed about this subject. I am annoyed at the double standard applied by organizations like MALDEF

And every country has it's atrocities to account for. Everytime I go to Ventura and see the statue of Junipero Serra I am reminded of that

[xbacksideslider]

I apologize for opening a sore subject; the intentional refusal to keep stats on illegals is just the latest example of government playing "hide the ball."

As for what ails this country, yes, it is corporatists, BUT, I blame politicians who solicit money from corporations more than I do those corporations.

I see the corporations as the corner grocer in "The Godfather" who has no choice but to pay "protection" to the Godfather politicians. After all, it is the politician who makes the rules, who, in contrast to the corporation, has the power to say "No." Who has the DUTY to say "No." We should condemn the politicians long before we condemn their victims, or at best, their subordinate corporatist co-conspirators.

If one hears talk of "campaign finance reform," it is either the talk of a dupe, or an intentional diversion.

It is a diversion from the culpability of politicians in the first place. The best every day example of this is regulation; every time a politician calls for regulation, he is talking out of both sides of his mouth. He is saying to the public "You don't have to go to court to force that corporation not to hurt you, instead, I will protect you with a law, a regulation, a commission" and out of the other side of his mouth he is saying to the corporatists "Pay me and I will write the law, write the regs, appoint commissioners, so you will be protected, or, so your competitors will be hurt, just pay me now, and pay me forever." That's how these streams of "contributions" are started and perpetuated.

The politicians, in any call for regulation, are taking a problem that could be, and ought to be, handled by juries, away from juries, and handing it to hand picked regulators who are paid, in part, to protect the very industry they "regulate." For example, I can't sue an airline for "leaving me on the tarmac" for 6 hours; no, my sole recourse under that BS "Airline passenger Bill of Rights" is to file a claim with the FAA. I can't sue Edison for a "brown out" or Verizon for "dropped calls" - my sole recourse is to whine and beg to Edison or Verizon, or file a claim with the regulatory agency. Good luck with that.

Second, I blame the MSM. FDR packed the Federal Communications Commission during his first term; he took effective control of radio, and then television. If you wanted a license, or wanted to keep your license, you had best tow the "New Deal" line. From the mid-30s on, a Democrat/MSM New York/industry coalition controlled the FCC all the way through to the 80's.

I was born in the early '50s and it was not until the '80s that I could read or hear or watch anything political that was contrary to the MSM's liberal slant. Yeah, there were tiny fringe publications such as Buckley's "National Review;" so what? Not networked, or wire serviced. Only with the onset of Reagan's '80s could I read or hear anything contrary to the leftward (and RINO) line provided by the TV/Radio oligopolies of CBS, NBC, and ABC, or the publishing oligopolies of the New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, and LA Times.

The break came in the late 70's with the PC, and then desktop publishing. This allowed independent political publishing for everyman - mailing lists and newsletters - all of a sudden, Libertarian and Conservative voices were heard, instead of suppressed. This was an "end around" the oligopolies of the Left. This was the "grass roots" that enabled Reagan to surprise the RINOs and capture the Republican nomination in 1979-80.

As a Hollywood/media person, Reagan knew where to pressure point was. Therefore, one of Reagan's earliest projects was to appoint new commissioners to the FCC; Reagan's appointees abolished the pro-Left "Fairness Doctrine" and that allowed, for the first time in my life, a conservative to host a radio show, all alone, the biggest and best example - Limbaugh. Imagine that, whether you like him or not, a one sided talk radio was outright ILLEGAL before Reagan! Finally, for the first time in my life a free market right winger had a megaphone! Do you recall how bad daytime radio was back then, before talk?

Then, Reagan's FCC de-regulated cable TV, and that allowed, eventually, FOX to feed the appetite of people, like me, who had been starved, intentionally, of an alternative, diverse, point of view, for their entire political life.

[SonicVenum]

My mini-rant wasn't directed toward you, it just flowed out of me when I read your post.

To touch a few other previous points... if they try to deport me, I'd probably end up somewhere in the middle east based on my looks. As for folks taking the correct and legal path to citizenship... that's great for them. I'm glad they have the means to do so. Unfortunately, not everyone has the means to accomplish this feat. Instead, they have to go a much more dangerous, and still relatively costly route to what they perceive as a better life. And I'm not just talking about Mexicans and Latin Americans here. We know a whole lot of people ride over here on boats in large shipping containers. Most have the same motivation. Too bad they don't have the same bullshit political protection the folks from the little island off Florida get. Set one foot on our soil, and you're a political refugee given safe harbor.

xbacksideslider, reading your last post helps me understand conservatives like you a little better. I was born at the end of the 70's, so as long as I can remember, conservatives have had a loud voice in the media. As you stated, you were were well into your 20s, if not your 30s, before you heard someone on your side get a solo spot in media (though, I inferred that before these regulatory changes, political talk had to be balanced, one from each side?). Unfortunately, the people in those positions in the conservative media have gotten crazier and crazier. So many of the pundits on your side have become nothing more than loud caricatures that say ridiculous things just to get ratings and sell books. I really wonder if they even believe half of the crap they spew. I'm not saying the left does much better either. That's why I enjoyed watching Jon Stewart, and still enjoy Colbert and John Oliver. Sure, they're all liberals, but at least they're willing to attack both sides when they're wrong. I am in no way saying it's balanced, but it's much closer to the middle than most other things I've seen in the political arena.

You make a good point that politicians should carry a greater portion of the blame, but the corporate billionaires are FAR from victims in this. They are not the small store owner trying to get by and feed their family, and having to pay for protection. No, they are exorbitantly wealthy people that want to gain more wealth at all costs. They don't care what they do to the country, or the world. All they care about is gaining more wealth. Billionaires are spending millions to get the "right" people into office. It's a symbiotic relationship. Both sides need each other, and both sides are guilty. Greed is at the core of the problem. The victims are small business owners, and the middle class. And the funny thing is a lot of the people in this group of victims like to blame socialism, poor people, and immigrants for their problems, when it's painfully obvious that those are all just symptoms of the real problems. They look to the left to place blame when BOTH sides of the aisle are to blame for what ails them.