Random Politics & Religion #00

The TSA runs a fairly entertaining Instagram account, if you're the sort of person who is impressed by pictures of weapons seized from stupid passengers. That would be the extent of its social media prowess. Its blog is pretty much a 50/50 mix of Yet Another Thing You Can't Take Onboard and Blogger Bob defending the TSA's latest gaffe.

One of the TSA's official Twitter flacks tried to loft a lighthearted "hey, look at this thing we came across!" tweet. She couldn't have picked a worse "thing" to highlight, considering the ongoing outrage over civil asset forfeiture.



First: should the TSA be broadcasting the contents of someone's luggage -- especially considering the contents are a large amount of cash -- along with broadcasting the airport where it was discovered and the baggage's appearance? There may not be any recognizable privacy violations here, but it's certainly bad form. And it does no favors to the person carrying it.

Second: unless the traveler was attempting to take the money out of the country without reporting it to Customs, it's none of the TSA's business how a traveler carries money from place to place. It may be careless, but it is not illegal and it is certainly not something government agencies should spend too much time obsessing over. (But of course they will, because travelers' cash can quickly become the government's cash, thanks to civil asset forfeiture.)

Third: the TSA's public interest in this member of the public's cash is flat-out unseemly. Not only does the tweet portray the unnamed person as some sort of idiot/criminal (or both!), but it led many to the obvious assumption that this cash was seized.

But, you know, LOL #otherpeoplesmoney and all that.

The foregone conclusion that this money had been seized was (momentarily) dispelled by another tweet from the TSAmedia_Lisa account.


So, somehow a passenger managed to walk through airport security with a large amount of cash and managed to still be in possession of it on the DEPARTURE side of the checkpoint?

No. This is AMERICA, land of the somewhat free and home of the brave drug warrior.

A followup email to the Washington Post's Chris Ingraham proved TSAmedia_Lisa's (Farbstein) response was technically true and completely disingenuous.


It seems the police didn't just "investigate." They worked with another federal agency to take the money:


So Farbstein's claim about how it was "just a curiosity" is completely bogus. Not only was the photograph and putting it on social media a questionable invasion of privacy, but then they handed it off to another federal agency to take the money... and then the TSA clearly implied the opposite on social media once the story blew up.

A one-digit correction to President Obama's directive on hostage policy Wednesday had the effect of disclosing the existence of a previously unknown — and still-secret — Obama order on national security.

The hostage policy was originally released Wednesday as a presidential policy directive numbered PPD-29. When the White House corrected that number to PPD-30, it meant Obama had issued a secret directive as PPD-29 sometime in the past 17 months.

Obama signed PPD-28, an order on electronic eavesdropping in the wake of revelations by Edward Snowden, in January 2014.

So what is PPD-29? No one's talking. A spokesman for the National Security Council declined to comment of the existence of classified PPDs Wednesday.

"The only reason we know about it is the sequential numbering of the directives, and realizing they skipped a few," said Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists, which tracks the directives.

PPD-29 isn't the first to be tacitly acknowledged only by a missing number. Of the 30 PPDs issued by Obama, 19 have not been released. And for 11 of those, the White House has not disclosed even the subject of the order.

"It's not only the public that doesn't have copies. It's also Congress that doesn't have copies," Aftergood said. "It's a domain of largely unchecked presidential authority. It doesn't mean it's bad, but it's lacking in independent oversight."

But they have the same legal force as an executive order, forming a body of largely secret law, said Harold Relyea, a political scientist who advised Congress on national security directives before retiring from the Congressional Research Service.

"The difference is that while executive orders are public by law — they must be published in the Federal Register to be effective —- PPDs are not," he said. "It is a kind of secret law. People have to obey it. But it's a directive that can allocate money, direct people or take a course of action."

What Obama calls PPDs have gone by different names by different presidents back to the Truman Administration. President George W. Bush called them National Security Presidential Directives (NPSDs). President Clinton called them Presidential Decision Directives (PDDs). President Nixon called them National Security Decision Memoranda.

Whatever they're called, Obama has been less prolific than his predecessors. George W. Bush issued 66 such orders, plus 25 more Homeland Security Presidential Directives. President Reagan issued at least 325.

Some, going back as far as the Lyndon Johnson administration, remain classified. They can involve subjects including the use of nuclear weapons, ballistic missile defenses, space policy, cybersecurity and even continuity plans for the federal government in the case of a large-scale disaster.

The secrecy makes it difficult to know entirely what changes Obama has made in the hostage policy. The directive issued Wednesday revoked a prior directive by President George W. Bush in 2002. But that directive, known as NSPD-12, remains secret.

"You would think that if there's a new policy it would be a simple matter to explain what the old policy was," Aftergood said.

And even though Obama released his directive, it incorporates a classified annex with additional instructions to executive branch agencies.

The State of Illinois is operating without a budget, a one-month spending plan failed to pass the House, and legislators are on holiday.

Democrats and Gov. Bruce Rauner were unable to agree on the full 2016 budget before the state began its new fiscal year on July 1.

"Obviously I'm disappointed and frustrated with the General Assembly. We could and should resolve these issues on a prompt basis. This has been dragging for a while," GOP Rauner said.

"Let's get to work on the No. 1 problem facing the state of Illinois: the budget deficit. Let's not function in the extreme. Let's function in moderation. Let's make sure that everybody is reasonable with all of this," said State Rep. Mike Madigan, D-Illinois House Speaker.

At a cost of $2.3 billion, the Democrats' were pushing a one-month plan would have kept some "essential" services, including Medicaid Illinois State Police protection, elderly meals and veterans home, going while the budget battle continues.

The measure was approved by the Illinois Senate, 37-0 & 11 "present" votes, but failed in the Illinois House, 67-1-32. Rauner, who calls the plan "unconstitutional," had said he would have vetoed it had it passed. Rauner used his veto power earlier Wednesday morning to keep lawmakers from receiving their annual 2-percent cost of living raises.

The spending plan bill would have needed a three-fifth vote to pass.

How long can the state operate without a budget or temporary spending plan?

"I think it's going to go on for a while," Illinois Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno, (R), said. Months? "That's not outside the realm of possibility."

"It's chaos across the line and giving stability of a one-month budget to give us time to work with the governor seems the only sensible, common sensible thing to do," State Representative Flynn Currie, (D), said.

The House ended its session on Wednesday and legislators left to begin the Fourth of July holiday weekend. They won't be back until next Tuesday, leaving the state without a budget for at least the next six days.

In June, state lawmakers sent an unbalanced budget of $36 billion to Rauner. He vetoed most of the plan, saying he wants changes in business and political practices - like lawmaker term limits and a property tax freeze- before going along with raising revenue.

Rauner did, however, approve of adding another $74 million to K-12 and early childhood education, which brings the education funding to $344 million.

Those who work with some of the state's most vulnerable residents say Rauner's budget plan would cut funding for education, Medicaid, childcare and hospitals.

Tim Egan, CEO of Roseland Hospital in Chicago, said without a budget in place, hospitals across Illinois that receive state funds may have to lay off staff, reducing their ability to care for patients. He said the need is particularly urgent in hospitals like his, where emergency physicians frequently treat victims of Chicago violence.

"We have a moral obligation," he said. "I assure you people will die without a budget agreement."

In Chicago, hundreds of people who are facing layoffs due to cuts in state funding rallied. Monica Sanchez said she doesn't know if she still has a job at Empresarias del Futuro, an educational training program to help women in small business run through Mujeres Latinas en Accion.

"We don't know. We don't know. We have a meeting at 4 p.m. today, and we are going to know what happens then," Sanchez said.
BUSINESS AS USUAL IN ILLINOIS?

On Wednesday, the governor borrowed $454 million from special state funds to manage Illinois' cash flow and avoid late penalty payments. While state business continued and public parks and driver's license facilities remain open, it isn't clear if workers will receive complete paychecks on their next pay day.

Illinois State Police continue to patrol.

However, the Illinois Department of Human Services is reducing Child Care Assistance Program benefits in light of limited funding projected for the next fiscal year. The department said the changes, which take effect Wednesday, had to be made in order to continue providing assistance in the future. IDHS outlined those changes HERE.

Obama the Transparent, lol.Obama has issued 19 secret directives

I'm not a fan of many of the PPD's that have been leaked recently or secret laws that have no judicial oversight, but what exactly are you critizing here?

The law governing this goes back to the 1940's and every president has used it to some extent.

I see you must've skipped that class or just burnt the book.

The American people can quickly jump on a trend to remove a flag, but do not care about secret laws and even embrace them. (with no judicial oversight as you pointed out)

The fact that you use animal farm as an allegory for equality is why I called you a bigot.

The fact that you use animal farm as an allegory for equality is why I called you a bigot.

So you have nothing eh chaos?

If hypocrisy and lies are nothing to you, then I guess he has nothing.

Its not hypocrisy nor lies. I love when you guys cry about transparency, when last year boehner killed the transparency bill that his own chamber passed 400-0 and the Senate passed 100-0, just to spite Obama.
The public is absolutely not entitled to know everything, the faster you accept that the faster you stop looking like idiots. I notice you just gloss over the fact that he has issued less than half the amount of secret orders than his predecessor, and wow Reagan with at least 325. But oh no, Obama has issued 19, no transparency!

If hypocrisy and lies are nothing to you, then I guess he has nothing.

Its not hypocrisy nor lies. I love when you guys cry about transparency, when last year boehner killed the transparency bill that his own chamber passed 400-0 and the Senate passed 100-0, just to spite Obama.
The public is absolutely not entitled to know everything, the faster you accept that the faster you stop looking like idiots. I notice you just gloss over the fact that he has issued less than half the amount of secret orders than his predecessor, and wow Reagan with at least 325. But oh no, Obama has issued 19, no transparency!

Animal Farm is an allegory for equality. That's... rather obvious.

It's an allegory for the social unrest and he's arguing from the side of the oligarchy. He's attributing gay rights with propaganda and exploitation. The same tired bigoted crap in a newly found literary tuxedo.

You are all an allegory!

California Governor Jerry Brown on Wednesday was considering whether to sign a bill that would remove the word "lynching" from a 1933 law that used the term to describe the crime of trying to wrest a person from police custody.

The bill, which unanimously passed in the California Legislature last week, followed furor over the arrest of black activist Maile Hampton on a charge of felony lynching during a "Black Lives Matter" demonstration in Sacramento in January.

Hampton's attorney, lawmakers and other supporters rallied behind her at court and on social media, saying it was ironic she had been charged under a decades-old law that was originally enacted to protect black detainees from white lynch mobs.

Hampton's supporters also called for the removal of the word lynching from the penal code, saying its application was not appropriate.

Thousands of African-Americans were victims of lynchings, or extrajudicial public execution by hanging, in Southern states in the 19th and 20th centuries.

“Whether obsolete, perverse or just wrong, it’s time for that law to change,” Sen. Holly Mitchell, a California legislator representing a district including historically African-American communities in Los Angeles, said in a statement on her website.

Hampton was detained for allegedly trying to pull a friend from police custody during a January protest over the killings of unarmed black men by white police officers, the Sacramento Bee reported.

Sacramento County District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert has since reduced Hampton's charges to resisting arrest, a misdemeanor.

Schubert did not respond to a request for comment about the case.

Mitchell, who introduced the bill to change the language of the law, said penalties would not be eliminated or reduced under the bill, and killing a person by mob action would remain a felony.

The crime of trying to remove someone from police custody is punishable by between two and four years in state prison.

Oregon officially became the fourth state to legalize recreational marijuana on Wednesday, as pot smokers gathered across the Beaver State to light up and celebrate.

In Portland, hundreds of weed enthusiasts fanned out across the aptly-named Burnside Bridge before midnight, counting down the minutes until the law allowing recreational use went into effect. As was the case in Colorado, Washington and Alaska, Oregon pot smokers hugged and toked like stoners at the stroke of midnight on New Year's Eve.

There was, however, at least one reason to curb the herb enthusiasm. The Oregon law allows those 21 and older to smoke marijuana privately, grow up to four pot plants and possess up to eight ounces of weed at home and carry one ounce outside. But unlike Colorado and Washington, pot shops won't arrive until 2016, and a bill that would allow bans on retail sales in cities and counties where at least 55 percent of voters are against legalization is headed to the governor's desk.

"We're legal as of midnight, but we don't have any legal place to purchase," Russ Belville, head of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws' Portland chapter, told KATU-TV.

Those celebrating the new law weren't complaining: Until the retail stores arrive, Oregonians are being encouraged to share their stashes.

"I'm just here to get weed for free," Phillip Piper, who was visiting from Tennessee, told the Oregonian.

"I never imagined you'd be able to hand out joints in the street and it would be acceptable," Kristin McKinnon told the paper.

"We figure, let's take advantage of Oregon generosity and just overgrow," Belville said. "Free the weed — so to speak — so that we're not perpetuating the black market."

On Friday, an event dubbed "Weed the People" is scheduled in North Portland. Attendees will be able to share, sample and take home up to 7 grams of weed cultivated by Oregon growers that have been producing the state's medical marijuana.

According to organizers, tickets for the event — at $40 a pop — are already sold out, and there are more than 750 people on a waiting list.

Free the weed, indeed.

The American people can quickly jump on a trend to remove a flag, but do not care about secret laws and even embrace them. (with no judicial oversight as you pointed out)

You are all an allegory!