Aaaah....thanx, another intelligent comment!

But Lessig is not the one to lead, he is that wolf in sheeple's clothing the misinformed will follow. Find out his comments before the Federalist Society (which he has appeared at many, many times) and at the Bilderberger form he attended with those execs from Stratfor and Palintir Technology.

Plus 10,000 points, good citizen!

I love ya, and I believe you to be one of the greatest Polish-Americans who ever lived, if not the Greatest, but stupid is as stupid does, and Lessig is another covert neocon for Wall Street, who is misleading people by wasting their time (and money, fer crissakes), in a completely futile (and purposely by design "futile") endeavor which will accomplish nothing but end up making more and more active people frustrated and demoralized.

Your point is pretty much self-refuting, because public transit is heavily subsidized, perhaps even more than automobiles are.

We don't come anywhere close to spending "half our budget on wars." The military (plus veterans' benefits) only accounts for about 22% of total federal spending.

I'm sorry, but this is beside the point. If there are going to be 501(c)(4)s, the IRS has to judge them fairly, and they weren't. Maybe you think the AARP, the NRA, the League of Conservation Voters, the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, the National Wildlife Federation Action Fund, and all the rest should be taxed like for-profit corporations, but under the interpretation of the law that has existed for decades, they aren't. And if you are going to change that, don't change it for one political view, and not for the others.

I am not downplaying the importance of the NSA scandal, but the IRS scandal is, in a way, worse. While the NSA violated the right of masses of Americans, it is (as far as we know) an "equal opportunity" violation of rights. But the IRS scandal is about using the machinery of government for partisan advantage. That is hugely dangerous in a way different, and arguably worse.

Nonsense. What section of the code should they have applied for? 501(3)(c)s have strict limits on participation in politics. 501(c)(5) and 501(c)(6) are even worse fits.

If Obama's campaign organization can become a 501(c)(4) and now serve has a propaganda and lobbying arm for Democrats, including running the Presidential Twitter feed, how is it that groups that want to educate people about the Constitution are somehow too political? Or you seriously going to argue that Organizing For America qualifies, but hundreds of Tea Party groups do not? Give it up, dude. This is a genuine scandal of Nixonian proportions.

Exactly. Lois Lerner also went after the Christian Coalition when she was at the FEC.

Can we please stop referring to this as a "fake scandal"? It's real.

1. - Hundreds of conservative groups were targeted
2. - Applications were delayed for months and years
3. - Absurd, intrusive, unusual questions were asked: for membership lists, readings lists, the content of prayers (WTF?)
4. - 100% of the 501(c)(4) groups audited by IRS were conservative
5. - The IRS audited 10% of all Tea Party donors from the lists provided to the agency
6. - Meanwhile, Obama's campaign org OfA smoothly became a 501(c)(4), and still runs his Twitter feed. No partisan politics there!
7. - Obama's skeezy half-brother had his "charity" fast-tracked to 501(c)(3) status, despite years of illegal fundraising, and had those illegal actions approved retroactively.
8. - And all along, administration officials lied repeatedly: it was a rogue activity of a few people in Cincinnati, etc., and most recently, Congressional testimony that the IRS has all of the emails.

Richard Nixon could only dream of using the IRS like this. By now, only the willfully blind can consider this a "fake" scandal.

And yet Mexico has over triple the rate of tuberculosis, which makes me question the efficacy of those vaccination rates.

Nonsense. He knows what he sees in his work. He wasn't making an epidemiological statement, he was making an observational one: the TB cases he was seeing were disproportionately illegal immigrants. Observation is not necessarily "observational bias."

No, I just assume he's an expert on the characteristics of his patients and their diseases, because that's his job.

He worked at a free clinic, and was speaking from personal experience. I don't think a doctor has to be an epidemiologist in order to note what he sees.