The FAA and TSA have delayed the implementation of the controversial CAPPS II program, conveniently until after the election. The program, which you'll recall was going to subject every flier to an in-depth and invasive background check incorporating commercial and federal government databases, was determined to give "yellow" or "red" status to up to 8% of passengers. Passengers getting a "red" determination would probably be detained, and the early forecasts for the system indicated that about 2% of fliers would be branded as such. With nearly 2 million people flying each day, even conservative estimates would put 30,000 passengers in the dock and 150,000 people under close scrutiny without anything explaining exactly why they're there.
Politically, the old algebra of the Bush administration was going to make this work about a year ago. They were going to ignore concerns about privacy, and conveniently time one of Ashcroft's graven warnings about nothing in particular, and suddenly we're all getting harassed by airport Stasi who know a lot more about us than we're comfortable with.
But something has happened in the last six months that made the Bush campaign aware of just how fragile things are for them right now. They got hammered on the civil liberties record and they can't find a way around the issue, so they're shelving this. It's not dead, but it probably will be gone for good if Bush doesn't return to office.
BOSTON -- Lawmakers on Wednesday took a step toward making Massachusetts the first state to make comprehensive and affordable health care a constitutionally protected right.
[...]
The amendment states that "it shall be the obligation and duty of the Legislature and executive officials ... to enact and implement such laws as will ensure that no Massachusetts resident lack comprehensive, affordable and equitably financed health insurance coverage for all medically necessary preventive, acute and chronic health care and mental health care services, prescription drugs and devices."
Turns out, packing a pistol in public is perfectly legal in Virginia. And three times in the last month, including at Champps on Sunset Hills Road, residents have been spotted out and about in the county, with guns strapped to their hips, exercising that right.
Isn't this a great country where we have such diverse living choices? I for one sure wish I lived in Virginia so I could dust off my sweet .357 Magnum when I go to the grocery store.
Hi folks. Sorry about the technical difficulties. Tarek came back from travelling and found that I had tied Aaron to a coconut tree, stole his glasses to cook ants for consumption in my own White House made out of sun-dried overripe bananas. But we're all better now. And just in time, because I would've been annoyed if I could not post this:
Hoping to send a warning to churches helping the Bush campaign turn out conservative voters, a liberal group has filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service charging that an organization run by the Rev. Jerry Falwell has violated the requirements of its tax-exempt status by endorsing Mr. Bush's re-election.
The group is Americans United for Separation of Church and State and their move is a response to Bush 's plan to mobilize churches throughout the bible belt for his campaign. Besides being annoying to us non-evangelicals, the President's plan is also illegal. Church groups are "501(c)3" - meaning they are tax exempt public charities that cannot engage in political activities. Helping Bush would probably fall into the political activity cataagory.
Hello all. I'm sorry that the Liquid List had gone dark for so long. Oliver is travelling currently and I'm just back from a family visit to Egypt, where internet action (unless you're playing Doom, I noticed) is spotty.
Anyhow, things should be fine now. We've still got the little comments bug to work out, but it should be all restored shortly.
In the meantime, you can always access any of us using the email addresses at the top of the page. I've got some observations from my trip (and the other news events of the past two weeks) which you'll see in this space shortly.
We've been having serious technical difficulties here at TLL that we newbies (Aaron and I) have no idea how to fix. Parents Oliver and Tarek are off jaunting about the globe and we're left to fend for ourselves. Its becoming somewhat Lord of the Flies-ish, actually.
So bear with us, Tarek and Oliver should be back soon to fix everything and we'll be back in business.
Loyal readers of TLL: Obviously, we have had massive technical difficulties of the sort that Shawn and I can only sit back and ponder endlessly. The site seems to be working for some reason, but only occasionally. We hope this doesn't continue until Oliver and Tarek get back to troubleshoot, but fear it might. Thanks for checking in!
Due to technical difficulties here at The Liquid List, I'm not quite sure you'll be able to read this post. But I wanted to make sure to highlight this article on great things happening in Tom DeLay's life.
DeLay's fundraising efforts helped produce a stunning political success. Republicans took control of the Texas House for the first time in 130 years, Texas congressional districts were redrawn to send more Republican lawmakers to Washington, and DeLay -- now the House majority leader -- is more likely to retain his powerful post after the November election, according to political experts.
But DeLay and his colleagues also face serious legal challenges: Texas law bars corporate financing of state legislature campaigns, and a Texas criminal prosecutor is in the 20th month of digging through records of the fundraising, looking at possible violations of at least three statutes. A parallel lawsuit, also in the midst of discovery, is seeking $1.5 million in damages from DeLay's aides and one of his political action committees -- Texans for a Republican Majority (TRMPAC) -- on behalf of four defeated Democratic lawmakers.
DeLay has not been named as a target of the investigation. The prosecutor has said he is focused on the activities of political action committees linked to DeLay and the redistricting effort. But officials in the prosecutor's office say anyone involved in raising, collecting or spending the corporate money, who also knew of its intended use in Texas elections, is vulnerable.
George W. Bush appears to assume that voters won't remember how pitifully qualified he was before taking on the presidency. Here's his first jab at John Edwards.
Bush had cordially welcomed the freshman senator to the race hours after Kerry announced his choice of running mate, but when asked here how Edwards would stack up against Vice President Cheney, he snapped: "Dick Cheney can be president. Next?" Then Bush pivoted away from his questioner and toward the next one.
Let me just say that of all the people in the line of succession, Dick Cheney scares me the most. The fact that he can be president is not necessarily a plus for many voters. I'm not sure how far the Bush campaign wants to go with the Cheney vs. Edwards comparisons. They're as likely to uncover Cheney's bad bits for voters as-yet-unaware versus contrasting Edwards as weak on experience. Compared to Cheney, Edwards looks virginal (Halliburton et al), and compared to Bush, Edwards shines. Bring it on!
In a one-sentence statement, the panel's chairman and vice chairman said that "after examining available transcripts of the vice president's public remarks, the 9/11 commission believes it has access to the same information the vice president has seen regarding contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq prior to the 9/11 attacks."
You know what Dick is dying to shoot back: "Commission, Go f*ck yourself."
The VP had said earlier that the reason why he can say Iraq has loads of WMD and a massive Al-Qaeda partnership when the Commission says he's totally full of crap, is because he knows more than everyone else. Looks like the investigators have cleared that up for everyone. Will we ever see the day when Chney gets in trouble for his considerable misdealings?
As I was reading this Hill article today about the resumption of business in the Senate, this little jem caught my eye:
Frist has also scheduled a vote on the eve of the Democratic convention in Boston on a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage. He has repeatedly denied that the timing of the vote was chosen to foist a wedge issue on Democrats leading into their convention. He said the timing was determined by state courts in Massachusetts that issued rulings allowing for recognition of gay marriage.
He has acknowledged that the amendment “probably would not get two-thirds” — the votes needed to pass the Senate. He defended his decision to bring it up nonetheless, saying it would provide a useful debate on the issue.
I thought, funny that Bill Frist has decided to spend the Senate's limited time on a highly controversial and unlikely to pass constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Even more remarkable is fact that, because of his scheduling, the vote will take place right on the eve of the Democratic convention. Quite a coincidence, no? I mean, Kerry's certain vote against the amendment will likely distract the media during the convention and mobilize Bush's base. Or, if he abstains, he'll likely annoy his lefty supporters. How lucky for the Republicans.
Politics: More Reflections - What's Hillary Thinking This Morning?
Posted by Shawn
...That she will never be president? With Edwards on a winning ticket, things aren't looking good. He's a strong and young campaigner that could very likely give Kerry the edge against Bush, and keep on going strong after a successful 8-year Kerry Administration. If Ms. Clinton hopes otherwise, to get on the '08 ticket, well then she wishes ruin upon us all. With a Kerry and Edwards win in November, then she has to wait at least until 2012, or as late as 2020. If its the latter, then she'll be a 73-year-old woman running for President ...pretty unlikely unless people get alot more progressive between now and then.
Kerry has chosen John Edwards, his chief primary rival and rock start-status Senator from North Carolina, as his vice-presidential running mate. Wanting to post something quickly on this subject, I just want to make a few points. First, Kerry shows that he isn't afraid of being overshadowed during the campaign by his running mate. Second, Edwards brings a real crowd-drawing power to the campaign. Third, Edwards brings the regional balance and folksy tone lacking in Kerry. Two quick problems are, one, that Edwards hasn't even finished his first term in elected office - both a good and a bad thing. Second, both Kerry and Edwards are from the U.S. Senate, and thus easily to be branded as the Washington establishment. More is surely to come.
Which of the following does not belong with the others:
A) Champion of segregation
B) Ardent Civil Rights Act foe
C) Dixiecrat presidential candidate
D) Father of biracial child that is now joining the United Daughters of the Confederacy
Ha HA! It's a trick question. They all belong together. Today the New York Times reports that Dixiecrat and segregationist Strom Thurmond's biracial daughter Essie Mae Washington-Williams is applying to join the United Daughters of the Confederacy, a group dedicated to upholding the history and honor of Southern soldiers. How's that for a sentence that might make you say (in the words of John Stewart) Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa?!
Essie Mae's stated reason for signing up with the rebel group is to learn more about her family's lineage and history through the organization's geneaological data. And that's all well and good, if she doesn't mind missing the forest for the trees. You see, it is not unreasonable to say that by supporting the UDC, Essie Mae dismisses to some degree the rather monstrous and ugly fact that Confederates supported the enslavement and segregation of half her family line. Perhaps, to understand one's history, it would have been more fitting for the biracial daughter of a renowned racist leader to take advantage of the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute's oral history project, the resources of the King Center, or the influence of the NAACP. The UDC just might have been a bit of an odd choice. From the NY Times:
The patriot organizations said they do not keep track of the racial makeup of their membership, but Patsy Limpus, president general of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, said she knew of "several" blacks in her organization, which claims 170,000 members.
Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a civil liberties group in Montgomery, Ala., said there was no way to say how many Sons of Confederate Veterans or United Daughters of the Confederacy are black, but, he said, "I think there are precious few."
"This is the kind of thing that's going to come as a rude shock to the present leadership of the S.C.V., to put it mildly," he said.
I'm amazed that ol' Strom's legacy could get any weirder. What's next, Thurmond's outing as a Black Panther? Anyway, from the UDC's homepage here is why one should sign up:
I am a Daughter of the Confederacy because I was born a Daughter of the Confederacy. A part of my heritage was that I came into this world with the blood of a soldier in my veins...a soldier who may have had nothing more to leave behind to me and to those who come after me except in heritage...a heritage so rich in honor and glory that it far surpasses any material wealth that could be mine. But it is mine, to cherish, to nurture and to make grace, and to pass along to those yet to come. I am, therefore, a Daughter of the Confederacy because it is my birthright.
I am a Daughter of the Confederacy because I have an obligation to perform. Like the man in the Bible, I was given a talent and it is my duty to do something about it. That is why I've joined a group of ladies whose birthright is the same as mine...an organization which has for its purpose the continuance and furtherance of the true history of the South and the ideals of southern womanhood as embodied in its Constitution.
Now, I'd like to think that such a group would, at the very least, make some type of effort to condemn slavery before it goes about honoring the legacy of fallen Confederates. But that doesn't seem to be the case here, and since I'm a sushi-eating liberal noh-thon-ah (thats me trying to type Southern), I'm probably way out of touch with the thinking down there. Honestly, though, it's a bit hard to understand sometimes.
