Sorry to hear about Higgins' passing. These guys add so much joy and fun into our lives. Our 2 kitties are very much part of our family. We elected not to take an out of state trip a week ago because we weren't sure that they would be safe from predatory dogs while we were gone.

About the SNAP program: The GOP has said that there is corruption or people taking advantage of that system. If they really think that that is the case - why don't they propose some legislation to regulate it better? They really should not be able to have it both ways! I said the same thing to our US Representative. He probably did not even read my comments.

This is totally disgusting. We have billions in armaments and we are not willing to feed all of our people. Maybe is all of the politicians had to live for a month on anallocation of SNAP funds - that might change their tune. IMO this is a huge embarrassment to this country.

Thanks, Thom.

Aliceinwonderland ~ I did some research on Gun laws you might be interested in. As it turns out California already has the most restrictive gun purchase legislation in the county. Someone I know recently told me he went through it and tells me that not only is registration and licensing required; but, you have to take and pass a written gun proficiency test, pass an extensive background check, and go through a 15 day waiting period.

I did some further research and according to these statistics on Wikipedia California has the most restrictive gun laws in the United States scoring 80 out of 100 on the Brady Campaign Score for gun laws. (100 being the most restrictive score.) Despite that effort California leads the nation in gun related murders per year at 1,257; followed not so closely by Texas at 805. Texas has a very poor gun restriction laws scoring at 6 out of 100 on the Brady Campaign Score for gun laws. California with a higher population than Texas at 37,253,956 and Texas at 25,145,561 and comes in with a lower gun ownership at 21.6% of the population. Texas gun ownership is at 35.9%. All other factors considered there is little difference in the number of deaths that occur from gun violence due to gun laws. Gun deaths per 100,000 people in Texas is 3.2 and in California is 3.4. Total murders by any cause per 100,000 people in Texas 5.0 and in California is 4.9. Not much difference at all considering that a higher percentage of people in Texas own guns with hardly any restrictive gun laws. The bottom line is that the gun death rate is higher in California despite the radical difference in gun laws.

Of course, that makes little sense. I'm sure that there must be more factors involved in these deaths then these simple statistics suggest. However, it does suggest that restrictive gun legislation does little to prevent gun violence. You would think that our leaders in Washington would be well aware of these facts.

In the big picture gun restriction laws has little to do with gun homicide rates when looking at other states. For instance, Illinois has a gun death rate of .8 and a Brady score of 2, North Carlina .6 with a score of 4, Vermont .3 with a score of 6, and Hawaii .5 with a score of 50.

Nevertheless, having learned that stricter gun legislation is in effect in my State somehow gives me a sense of relief. I agree that other states should at least adopt the reasonable policies already in effect here in California. If for no other reason, because it is the responsible thing to do. It sure can't do any harm as long as we limit those policies to reasonable restrictions. Perhaps the best way to do that is to let the states develop the law, like they did here in California. That would keep the Fed out of the loop. That would satisfy my apprehensions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

Quote Thom Hartmann:Five billion dollars is being slashed from the program, leaving the poor to survive on even less. Families who are already struggling to make ends meet will see their food stamp benefits drop by an average of $36 dollars per household. That may not sound like a lot, but it's a huge difference to a family trying to feed themselves on an average of $278 dollars a month.

It is quite amazing that the very imbeciles that wrote this Sequester abomination are people who routinely will dine at one meal in excess of $278.00 at the tax payer's expense. Oh, excuse me, that should be $242.00. My goodness! We have taken the tip away. These inhuman monsters should be ashamed of themselves. I hope they choke on their Caviar.

Great posts! You guys are on a roll with this topic. The little fascists can chain our bodies but not our spirits. - AIW

Right on, sister! "Alphabet soup groups"... fuck'em all. Some of us won't be scared or complacent, no matter what they do! And you're right about Glenn Greenwald; now, there's a real journalist for ya. I salute each and every kindred spirit out there... - AIW

Quote bobcox:You can't stop an autocracy from exercising a power one obtained. The only solution is to shut off the autocratic people, whoever they might be.

bobcox ~ Very sage advice indeed. Perhaps we have centralized too much power under the Executive Branch of the Government. As the assassination of JFK showed, when too much power is in that hands of one man and that one man tries to make massive positive changes for the multitude, then he poses too much of a threat to the ruling powers and has to be eliminated. If that one man serves the interest of the ruling powers, then he becomes too much of a threat to the the multitude, and has to be eliminated. Perhaps the final solution might be to eliminate the Executive Branch all together as we know it. After all, when it was created originally our Republic was much smaller and afforded the President much less power than he wields today.

What I might suggest is to replace the Executive office with an Executive Council. The Council would have thirteen members, twelve general members and one Council Chairperson elected from the main thirteen districts across the country. (The thirteen districts don't exist yet. We will have to create them.) The Council Chairperson rotates amongst the the thirteen every twelve weeks. The Council will hold all the powers and responsibilities of the current Executive Branch. Each Council member will have their own team of advisers or Kitchen Cabinet if you will. Each member will have one vote on each law or action placed before them. A majority of seven votes is a passing vote or a veto. Each member is elected by a majority of their own districts they represent. As such each member has to answer to a different constituency of the country. No one member is entrusted with all the Executive Powers. They share them equally. All members are limited to a term of 3 years, with only a one time reelection possible.

That might help to shut off the autocratic people regardless of who they might be. It would be far more difficult to control a council of thirteen then it is to control one man. (By the way, if you are wondering, the council of thirteen is not my original idea. I borrowed it from the New Testament. It seemed to work well for Christianity. It might work equally as well for Democracy.)

Regarding the military lockdown martial law exercized in Boston last April:

http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2013/04/uncle-ruslan-tsarn...

Graham Fuller denies any involvement, like any good CIA operative would.

NSA is abusing their powers and no one is going to do anything about it. I believe that it is too late and we are screwed. Don't have anything that could be considered subversive, etc but do not think they have a right to listen/copy anything/anywhere that I say or do without a warrant but it appears that is never going to happen now. It has gone on too long and is now entrenched in our government's way of doing things.That said, I WILL continue to bitch, say what I want and curse the NSA, CIA, FBI and whatever other alphabet soup group I want to and if that is a problem for them, oh well!! Guess I will take my chances. I am an elderly (according to some LOL) white, female with liberal tenants as well as a definite beliefe in my 2nd amendment rights to own/shoot my weapons legally. I agree with the death penalty ONLY in cases where there is DEFINITE PROOF that the crime was committed by the individual - such as Jack Ruby with Lee Harvey Oswald, etc. I despise most of the right wing nut jobs on SCOTUS and believe that they should be impeached and think most lawyers are the scum of the earth. The police have become too powerful and are not much better than the crooks. They can no longer react in time to prevent crime but only have reactive duties to take reports, call the morgue, try (not very hard, though) to solve crimes and commit a lot of them themselves. Snlowden and Manning both should be touted as great guys for opening our eyes to what our government and reporters (??) are supposed to. But, reporters are a thing of the past except for a few such a Glenn Greenwald who still have come journalistic morality to tell the truth and provide the citizens with the truth.

Hopefully I won't be censored for this but if so. Oh Well. FUCK THE NSA!!!

Quote Wendalore:Sorry to talk on a different subject. I asked a question on Thom's show about an hour or something ago, on what's the difference between Medicare Advange and Medicare Suplement.

Wendalore ~ I believe Medicare Advantage (MA) is the latest optional package of Medicare that is available to people 65 years and older. It is a Federally operated program funded by the taxpayer. Medicare Supplement (aka Medigap) Is any private insurance that you can purchase if you are 65 or older that furnishes additional benefits for your standard Medicare package. AARP Supplemental insurance is probably the best example of a Medicare Supplement. I hope that answers your questions. Further details are available online from Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Advantage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_supplement

I believe the way it works is that you can have Medicare--or Medicare Advantage--without any Medicare supplement; however, to qualify for a Medicare Supplement you have to first have Medicare.

Well, you're preaching to the choir, Thom, but it's good to remember that governments lie. And good people, often for good reasons, do bad things. An informed and active citizenry is often the only thuing that stops these trends from getting completely out of hand. And in America today far too few people seem to be both informed and active. Perhaps the outrage will build, but it really hasn't yet--as you've pointed out, many folks are too busy worrying about their jobs, working too many hours, or too distracted to get involved. Or are just scared of the "homeland" (gag on that term) police. Then too as an educator I'd say the lack of understanding that many younger people have of their rights and duties as citizens is truly breathtaking. When people feel powerless, they are powerless. (Which is how many dictatorships grow and continue.)

The converse is also true, which is how many genuine revolutions start. Reich put it well in "The Greening of America" when he said that once a person woke up he or she could never turn off their mind again. Sometimes it's a big event that breaks trust--the 1905 massacre in St. Petersburg was the start of the end for the Czar. We haven't reached that point here, but who knows what "social Chernobyl" could still happen, and maybe the NSA revelations (old news to many of us) are a start.

Meanwhile there is so much to loudly ask about. The drone strikes, with their endless reports of killing enemy "operatives" is a good example. Does anyone really believe this Vietnam War type of body count anymore? (Even earlier it didn't work; in WW2 a friend kept track of US reports of what casualties we inflicted on the Wehrmacht. Apparently we wiped out the entire German army 2 1/2 times over!) The point is that we can keep bringing up these types of questions. Perhaps in time enough people will listen to force some real change. Because as the current incumbent showed, any such thing will come from the bottom up, not the top down.

You were right a few weeks ago when you said that we citizens have a need and a right to being anonymous in that is how our rights came about in the first place. If the King had known everything about everybody there would have been no Tea Party (the real one), no Revolution, no Constitution and no American Flag.

http://www.takeoverworld.info/