California Edges Toward Joining Real ID Revolt 211
The Department of Homeland Security's Real ID program has a real challenge on its hands from California. DHS had said it will only grant extensions from the Real ID rules taking effect on May 11 to states that apply by March 31 and promise to implement Real ID by 2010. California requested an extension but would not make the latter promise. DHS buckled and said, in effect, "Good enough." Perhaps they realized that trying to slap giant California around is qualitatively different than doing the same to New Hampshire. In another crack in the wall. DHS has granted Montana a waiver it explicitly did not ask for. From Wired: "For a short moment Thursday, millions of Californians were in danger of facing pat-downs at the airport and being blocked from federal buildings come May 11... DHS had said before Thursday it won't grant Real ID extensions to states who don't commit to implementing the rules in the future. That meant Tuesday's letter looked like enough to join California to the small rebellion against the Real ID rules. For Californians that would mean enduring the same fate facing citizens of South Carolina, Maine, Montana, and New Hampshire... [A]fter Threat Level provided Homeland Security spokesman Laura Keehner with the letter, Keehner said California's commitment to thinking about commitment is good enough."
Did the MT extension had anything to with this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Capt. Ramius: I would think they'll let you live wherever you want.
Borodin: Good. Then I will live in Montana. And I will marry a round American woman, and raise rabbits, and she will cook them for me. And I will have a pick-up truck, or umm... possibly even...a recreational vehicle, and drive from state to state. Do they let you do that?
Capt. Ramius: Oh yes.
Borodin: No papers?
Capt. Ramius: No papers. State-to-state.
Re:Did the MT extension had anything to with this? (Score:5, Informative)
Damn that commy cut and paste buffer (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry about that... not back to normally scheduled reading.. or not
Re: (Score:3)
I say kudos to the guy for standing up for what he believes in. I wouldn't be brave enough to do it myself (nor the time to deal with all the legal research and filings). I support his efforts.
Re: (Score:3)
The government exists for the purpose of protecting our rights & returning stolen property, whether it's a car, television, refrigerator, lawnmower, or whatever. Of course it's the job of the sheriff to recover stolen property.
Vice-versa:
The man in New Mexico is 100% correct. The government does Not exist to deny our right to travel. This is why Amish Americans are free to use Pennsylvania roads without license, title, or restriction (though their preferred conveyance is by horse-and-b
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Damn that commy cut and paste buffer (Score:4, Insightful)
(2) "Don't damage the road" is not justification to deny someone's right to travel. Nor is "you are black" justification to enslave a person. Or "you are a pregnant woman" justification to deny the right to get a job. And on and on. Rights can not be taken away for trivial, bullshit reasons.
(3) Horse/buggies actually do quite a bit of damage to roads, so by your reasoning they should be banned until properly registered.
However the Amish Americans are very resourceful at getting their way. That's why they don't have licenses, they do pay property tax, but not income tax, nor social security, nor medicare. They may be "old-fashioned" but they still believe in HUMAN RIGHTS FROM GOD, and no politician is going to convince an Amish American that he has the authority to overrule the creator, or ban them from using the People's Roads. Therefore they don't follow what they consider to be unjust, illegal, unconstitutional laws.
I guess that makes Amish Americans "kooks" too?
Oh well; I suspect they don't care what you think.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Regulation is *always* created to give somebody an advantage over somebody else. It's *never* created to protect against the incompetent. The real incompetents don't know how to drive, and DON'T drive. That's the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, they are comparable. And the comparison is: theirs is higher.
Re:Damn that commy cut and paste buffer (Score:4, Informative)
But in reality, roads are so horrible, the average speed is 40 Kmph within cities and much much lower during rush hours. Between the cities, the speeds are between 60Kmph and 80Kmph. And the accidents are horrible. Ambulance service is bad. Measured in passenger kilometer terms, India's rate is about 100 times worse than USA. See the stats below.
90000 Indians die in road accidents, despite having less than 1% of the number of vehicles in the world [ertico.com]. Assuming USA 150 million vehicles, traveling 15,000 miles per vehicle, 25000 traffic fatalities per year, India with 15 million vehicles, traveling 6000 miles per year, the accident rate in India is 90 times worse than USA.
Re: (Score:3)
Considering it's the sheriff's legal obligation to protect the rights (such as property) of the individuals in his county, the answer would obviously be "yes." This question really has no bearing on the assertions made in that link.
Having known others who have successfully done the same thing, the only thing that any of the people who do this have to endure is harassment. If it were
Re:Did the MT extension had anything to with this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I applaude CA for this too, but, it does bring up a VERY troubling thought. Why did DHS back off their strict regulations when it came to CA, but, not all the other states?!?!?
This is, after all, the United States of America. Isn't each state supposed to be an equal of the rest of the states
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I don't know why you made this comment of states all following CA's emission standards. They just aren't needed in most states due to differences in climate, geography and population.
I'm not sure what this has to do with my OP about states rights....and not having the feds treat all states equally.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And as I understand it, if a law is being challenged in court on Constitutional grounds, it cannot be enforced until the matter is settled. (If a constitutional lawyer is handy, they may want to comment on whether this is correct.)
As to the possibility of restricting access to m
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If the fed's had funded this mandate, it would have been implemented already, regardless of how it relates to individual or state rights.
Re: (Score:2)
The bold/highlighted statement clearly shows his lack of knowledge about America ;)
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
States' rights make more sense now than ever before. People are able to move from state to state more easily than in the past. It's a feedback loop. As more retirees move to states like Florida and vote, more retiree friendly legislation gets passed, and more are drawn there as a result. They are happy because they get to live in a state where they have the votes to get what they want. And I'm happy they aren't here driving ten under the speed limit, clogging up the highways where I live. It's win-win.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
- State Legislatures operate as a counter-balance against the D.C. government becoming too dictatorial. For example, California's Legislature refusing to implement the "real id" (or as I say, Spy ID) in its current form is a way to remind the D.C. politicians to stop acting like nationalized tyrants.
If States rights did not exist, we'd all be living like D.C. residents (no medical marijuana allowed, ~$100 a year vehicle tax, universal gun ban, et cetera, et cetera). By allowing States to act independently, we keep at least *some* of our freedoms because the State Legislatures act as a counterweight against power-hungry D.C.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As for "selectively interpreting" the Constitution?
That's a HORRIBLE idea. It's equivalent to saying we should selectively enforce some laws ("don
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the Supreme Court looks at the same issues again. For instance, Plessy v. Fergison and then Brown v. Board of Education. That's because the 9th, 10th and 14th amendments are intentionally vauge and catch-alls. At the same time, the 14th amendment, and, due to changing conditions concerning interstate commerce, the commerce clause, give the federal government growing power over the states.
I think it's a good thing that in some cases the constituti
Re: (Score:2)
The Constitution is a Law. It's written in black-and-white and should be treated the same way. Otherwise the Law has no meaning if people choose to ignore what it says.
If there's a particular law which seems outdated (example: "two-thirds of other persons"), then it should be removed using the procedures provided (i.e. amendment or constitutional convention) not just randomly ignored in hopes it will go away. ----- The D.C. Gun Ban is another obvious case. I can not lay my hand upon any part of
Re: (Score:2)
I agree laws should not be ignored. However, laws should be written in a way so that they apply to new situations. For instance, fraud over the internet fit into other fraud over telephone lines (IANAL, so I may be incorrect), and thus didn't require a new law. AP
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
The states have ceded a lot of authority to the federal government over the past 200 years, especially since the Civil War. Much of that, civil rights for example, has been for the best. But the ability of the states to write and enforce their own laws is what made it possible for this country to grow from 13 colonies to one of the most geographically and culturally diverse countries in the world. Laws that may apply to the dairy farmers in Wisconsin may be counterproductive in a largely urban state like New Jersey.
States rights are still important even after the closing of our western frontier and slower growth today. State governments are more responsive, flexible and approachable than the federal government. Local politics may not be as sexy as the soap opera in Washington, but if you truly want your voice to be heard, local and state is the only way to go.
The states have tremendous untapped power even now, in this age of a strong central government. Washington just got used to pushing whatever they wanted down the states' throats. Even if I thought that REAL ID was a good idea, I still want the states to dust off their boots once in a while, just to keep everyone on their toes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think that should actually be an argument more FOR states rights. Since we are more able to move at will, we could more easily move to a state that 'thought' more along the lines we do. You don't like the drinking laws in NH? Well...then mov
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The countries that usually turn up at the top of quality of living rankings are also marked by a great deal of political centralism. The U.S., for all of the supposed promise in its states' rights ideals, is pretty far down the list.
They are also about the size (geographically and demographically) of an average state. Comparing Belgium to the US is similar to comparing Chicago to California. The US more accurately is comparable to the EU. So, you are saying that some states that aren't associated with a federation do a better job of quality of living than the federation that is the US. Has any of these quality of living ranking lists done one which compares individual states of the US to countries on the list?
This is completely dism
Re:Good (Score:4, Interesting)
I live in NH and a co-worker was complaining about NH was not adopting RealID and that they would have to suffer additional search and seizure at the Airports and borders because of it. After explaining what Real ID entails, they agreed with me that it's good to be a NH citizen, where on many an occasion we thumb our noses at invasive federal programs that do more harm than good.
There's a reason NH was chosen for the Free State Project [freestateproject.org], as much as I hate the winter months here, IMO, it's politically the best state to live in (tax wise it's the 2nd best state to live in too, and that's only because Alaskans get oil kickbacks).
Re: (Score:2)
though I hear you about the winters... me being a maineiac
Re: (Score:2)
It's better than Charlotte NC where I once lived.
So darn hot, you can't go outside without
feeling like a turkey roast in an oven.
(Besides with the supposed "global warming" coming along, New Hampshire may soon be like Maryland or Jersey - not too hot; not too col; just right.)
Re: (Score:2)
Then don't even think of moving to the New Orleans area...I've had to turn on my A/C a few times already this year...I think the first time was back in Feb.
10th Amendment is basically ignored. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
You want to kill a law? Then ignore it.
Re: (Score:2)
Parent post hit the nail on the head. Montana and New Hampshire did not ask for extensions. That would implicitly mean they want to comply but just need more time.
NH will not comply with the Feds, period. On Real-ID. Or on mandatory seat belts. LIVE FREE OR DIE. Capiche? [freestateproject.org]Re: (Score:2)
Jorbs, they be taking mine (Score:2, Interesting)
Hence the call for RealID. If you have one, supposedly you can finally prove that you are a citizen and entitled to all the rights a
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's easy to point to Manuel and blame him for cleaning toilets for $2.00/hr. After all, his skin is darker, and he don't talk 'murrican.
The real jerb problem in this country is not that Manuel is doing the $7.00/hr job for $2, but that our corporations have been shipping all our jerbs overseas, (both in manufacturing and services) and the corporations continue to pour U.S. dollars over the borders faster than Mexicans can climb back in. The large corporate interests must be pleas
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There are two ways to look at Binter. The first, unfortunately, is the way we have reacted. We turned against him and Manuel and want them out of the country so that we can have those jobs back.
The second is to look at the benefits that t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the immigrants I dislike. My closest friends were born in Japan, China, and Afghanistan, and I welcome them to the United States.
It's the ones who think "I'm above the law and don't need no stinkin' visa" who annoy me. My other friends followed legal procedure, filled-out all the necessary forms, and became U.S. citizens per the standards laid-out by the People's representatives in Congress.
The illegals did not.
They should be packed into buses, handed the required "request to become citi
Re: (Score:2)
You can't blame a corporation, whose sole purpose is to maximize profits for the shareholders, for taking advantage of a regulatory environment that encourages overseas investment. Nor can you blame them for engaging in legal lobbying practices in an effort to pass legislation that's in their best interests. The problem is the Republicans and Democrats who continue to create government policy
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Anti-immigrant fervor has grown steadily during the Bush administration, mostly due to the over-investment in foreign workers during the Clinton administration and the economic downturn during the early 2000s. The anger is mostly directed at Mexican and South (and Central) American foreigners who are perceived as coming into the US and stealing jobs from hard working Americans.
The same might be said for Europe, and currently for the UK who also have a fetish for wanting a "super" biometric ID cards and, more importantly, the all-knowing database behind it. Want to buy something in a store with cash, show us your ID card first. Did you vote for the wrong party, your ID is cancelled and you become a non-person, unable to get state benefits / pension / health-care.
The governments are very keen on using the pretext of immigration for ID cards etc., but it is they that deliberatel
Re:Jorbs, they be taking mine (Score:5, Insightful)
It's fairly well known in the UK that the ID card is just a political front for MI5 and the police force's desire to build a fingerprint database of everybody in the country. Nobody wants the cards, they just want to work around the recently passed laws that prohibited them from collecting DNA and fingerprints of people who aren't criminals, and they've seized on the idea of creating an ID card as an excuse to write new laws that will let them.
I doubt they even care whether the project succeeds in producing an ID card (it's currently failing, spectacularly - after three years of funding they've started collecting the fees and writing down your names, but there is no card, no database, no fingerprint collection, and no firm plan for when or even how they are going to do anything other than collect more fees; they are still wrangling with the contractors about who is going to be responsible for working out the plans for these various parts). The important part for them is that the laws will still be on the books, so they can escape from the recently imposed restrictions, even if there never is any card.
Re: (Score:2)
It has been known for some time that people of limited literacy (can read enough to flip burgers, can't read enough t
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, if you look at the majority of burger flippers out there....they also cannot speak English, because they aren't from the US. The sad thing is...there are many that are trying to give them the right to vote too!!
--And the invasion continues...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It is illegal to do what you are suggesting above.
If it wasn't for arnold ... (Score:5, Funny)
If it wasn't for him, we'd be dead from aliens and terminators and who knows what else! Its no wonder that even the DHS can't push him around.
Who is being protected? (Score:5, Interesting)
Citizens with valid and accurate papers are perfectly capable of entering a federal building with evil intent.
So you have to wonder exactly what the government thinks it is protecting itself from by using REAL ID?
Re:Who is being protected? (Score:5, Insightful)
Heck, citizens with valid papers and evil intent don't even need to enter a federal building to cause harm. Timothy McVeigh just parked his Ryder truck full of ANFO in front of the federal building in Oklahoma City.
The bit about preventing non-RealID holders from entering federal buildings has nothing to do with securing the buildings and everything to do with extorting compliance with RealID.
Upset Federal Judges and Litigators (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Upset Federal Judges and Litigators (Score:5, Interesting)
On the contrary, after the deadline, you cannot (legally) enter Federal buildings and therefore the courtrooms in them, even if you agree to be searched with a microscope and a probe captured from the aliens at Roswell. Without a "Real ID" identification or a (Federally issued) passport, you're technically screwed. Lots of people have no passport, nor feel any need for a passport, which is supposed to be only for entering and leaving the country, not for basic civil rights.
As a practical matter, though, I gravely doubt that the judges in those courtrooms would allow for an instant actually barring people from their courtrooms, leading nervous Federal security agents to ignore the black letter wording of the law, perhaps doing as you suggest and settling for giving the hairy eyeball to anyone arriving, voluntarily or otherwise, without his duly issued mark of the beast. They like giving people the hairy eyeball anyway, even without encouragement.
I suppose with this regime sooner or later someone will get cute and claim through a lawyer that he can't answer a summons regardless from a Federal judge because the law plainly forbids him from entering a Federal building without a "Real ID" identification or passport, and he has neither, and he cannot be legally forced to break the law. That would be amusing, although probably not to the judge who would be issuing contempt of court citations.
BTW, the Wikipedia entry is interesting and might as well be hereby linked [wikipedia.org]
.Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sue the Federal Government over the Real ID. Send you lawyer to court. When the judge asks "Where's the plaintiff?", your lawyer states that you are legally barred from entering the courtroom by the Real ID act.
DHS: Will You Marry Me? (Score:4, Funny)
Montana Governor (Score:5, Interesting)
A couple weeks ago, I heard the governor of Montana on NPR, talking about why his state wasn't going along with the federal plan. It was an embarrassing interview, he tried to sound folksy as a rural westerner would, but ended up sounding ornery, obstinate for no real reason, and clueless on the real issues. In my opinion, he missed a real chance to explain real reasons why Real ID doesn't make sense. I very much wish that they would get security experts like Bruce Schneier to talk in layman's terms about the actual shortcomings, or even Constitutional scholars to talk about the states-rights issues that apply here, than to get politicos who just want to explain why they "ain't signin' up today fer a concept of tomarra."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I hope he doesn't back down.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
States the Last Hope? (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps the states are our last hope. If California, New York, and just a few of the other big states say no to all the nonsense, the federal government shall have to back down or stage a coup.
It would be great to see them band together and take a very strong, pro-Constitutionalist stance on RealID, as well as the other recent intrusions on states' rights (I mean it in the Constitutional sense, not the neo-con sense).
For instance, the deployment of National Guard overseas at the expense of Civil Defense; the National Guard units belong to their respective states and actually answer to the governors, not the President. Or take the Medical Marijuana initiatives that passed all around the country in 2006 and which the Federal Government has been trying to countermand--it's not my issue but the states have the right under the Constitution to regulate such matters within their own borders.
Maybe, just maybe, if the states lead the way Congress will grow a pair.
Re: (Score:2)
You say "Congress won't defend the constitution or the rule of law", but it's Congress's job to create the rule of law, and it does that.
You say the "Supreme Court has been compromised", and yet the purpose of the Supreme Court is to rule on constitutional questions (among other things), and it's doing that.
Now, Congress may not be enacting the laws you like, and the Supreme Court may not be ruling the way you think it should. But Congr
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that Congress is also BOUND BY laws. Just because Congress is empowered to create and pass legislation doesn't mean that they are somehow immune from existing laws. Furthermore, their powers are specifically elaborated in The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. If they were defending the Constitution, they would have, for instance stopped
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Facts:
- The Real-ID system will be at least as secure (if not more) than the best existing state ID system in p
Re:States the Last Hope? (Score:4, Insightful)
The states do have their own soverign rights. Many of them fought against changing driking laws to 21, many against manditory seat belt laws, many against multiple speed limit changes. Fact is, all the federal government has to do is wave federal highway money in front of them (or threaten to take it away) and the states will bend and take it in the ass. They have over and over and over again...
Sad, isn't it? It's really all about money. States that decide they get more highway funds than it will cost them to implement Real ID will implement it, while states that get small amounts of highway funds will oppose it.
Facts:
- The Real-ID system will be at least as secure (if not more) than the best existing state ID system in place currently. Sure, it will be a big target, but it will also be closely guarded by top security people since it's such a public issue. Access will be restricted to public sector netowrks, not open to the public or common hacking attacks, just like the ATM network and existing police and DMV systems. It will be monitored constantly. Do you think South Carolina has a top notch FBI security team monitoring access to THEIR systems? I can tell you as someone who knows a few former programmers at the for SC state who wrote that system, NO IT CERTAINLY DOES NOT! there have even been breakins at DMV offices where PC, printer, and blank IDs have been stolen since the system requires no direct connection to a secure validation network in order to print IDs.
You're kidding, right? First of all, it will still be the state DMV's that are running and controlling the system, it will just be "connected" to a nationalized database. Sure, there will be more, and more higher-paid *government* security folks, but there will also be a lot more people with access, and less centralized control over who they are.
- Currently, all you have to do if you loose your license in one state is move to another and apply for a licesne there. Too many DUI's? just move and reset. Under Federally issued ID, this will not be possible, and states can protect themselves from repeat bad drivers (driving is a privelidge, not a right, and if you abuse it, we have the right to take it away and make sure you can't get it back, even if you move). This will lower insurance costs across the board.
This is just a total fiction. If you get so much as a speeding ticket in one (of many) states, it will follow you to whatever DMV you next register with (in most places). Currently, this is accomplished mostly by states joining cooperative agreements. The only thing nationalizing will do is that they will track you down *faster* than they do now, but they do it now. Try having your license suspended in one state and going to another to get one. You won't be able to do it except in some very rare circumstances. Not worth the cost and loss of privacy, IMHO.
- Few people in security (professional residential, even bartenders) can be expected to know how to spot fake IDs from every state (There are over 200 legal forms of ID circulating in america). With a single secure ID, we don't have to even look for fake info, we can swipe it, compare a computer screen to information on the ID, and compare the picture to the person, even use a biometric scan as further confirmation. RFID may not be secure, and it may only take a few days for someone to crack the chip in the ID and distribute hardware and software to edit it, but cracking the text printed on the ID will be much tougher. The state of CT has one of the hardest to forge IDs I've ever seen, and I've not seen them all. If REAL-ID takes even a handfull of their tricks, you won't see a lot of these faked (especially if it becomes a federal crime to do so, not a local misdemeanor!)
So you expect every bar and restaurant to install biometric iris scanners just to check everybody's ID? It will all be cracked eventually, and changing the
Re: (Score:2)
They already have all this information about you in the govenment's (IRS) taxpayer database... You already have a drivers license... You already can't enter a federal or state building without one...
By issuing you a universal ID, they're: making it cost less (only 1 organization paying millions for programming, not 51 of them), simplifying state to state communication, reducing insurance fraud, reducing tax fraud, hel
And we all know how secure REALID is... (Score:3, Informative)
So I ask, exactly how secure does this REALID card make us again?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I made so much money on 9-11 (Score:3, Funny)
Was it ever! I made so much moola in a such a short period of time that I wish we would get hit again.
of course this is not me - but I simply wanted to raise your emotions about how capitalistic our society is and let you be the judge... how did you feel when I typed that?
Re: (Score:2)
You might also want to consider a minor re-write, because it came across as very phony right away. You may also want to consider dropping the disclaimer, because it will greatly change people's responses. It's a sub-par trolling effort at this point in time, but it's a solid concept and with a little reworking I think you could get some truly priceless e-rants.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words - it made sense to me but the rest of the world was prob left in the dark
could someone articulate to me (Score:2)
we already have driver's licenses
i don't understand the rabid opposition to it
to me it seems a sort of so what
Re: (Score:2)
If the response is "We'll never have a dictator come to power," other democracies have fallen into dictatorships at one time or another.
Government-held information WILL be abused at some point. It has happened in every governmental system ever put into place in the US, so there is zero reason to expec
you are speaking fear and hysteria (Score:2)
#2. no one actually lives their lives successfully with the chicken little "the sky is falling!" attitude of ANY DAY NOW WE WILL HAVE HITLER. of course it's possible the usa can lose its democracy and become an authoritarian state someday. howabout we worry about that after we go another inch down that mile required to get to that reality? yes, i can hear your reply already "WE'RE ALREADY ALMOS
Re: (Score:2)
Way to put words in someone's mouth. I never claimed we were almost to a dictatorship. Bravo for trying to subvert a completely legitimate concern by attempting to make it seem like I was making claims that I did not, in fact, make.
It has nothing to do with false alarmism. Abuse of the data WILL happen at some point in the future. There is nothing in governmental history that supports a claim to the contrary. The level of abuse is somethin
well then let me get you with this observation (Score:2)
ok
i happen to have the fatalist view that centralization of the data will happen, nothing you can do about it
catch me now?
you seem to think i am bizarre for making light of almost certain abuse
i happen to think you are bizarre for thinking it is useful to fight almost certain centralization
with the same cynical fatalistic acceptance about abuse you show to me, i am here to tell you everything is already centralized, you
Re: (Score:2)
Abuses can at least come to light when there are people who are willing to dig and to fight, and sometimes those abuses may even be punished. Letting bad things happen and saying or doing nothing only makes it easier for abuse to become a common institutionalized occurance.
You can cast aspersions at or hold in contempt the people who dare to oppose th
cue uplifting music (Score:2)
zzz
dude: everything about real id is already in existence
it's a pointless technicality. you honestly think you are actually making a difference fighting a nonchange. you're not fighting over whether or not a gun is pointed at your head. you're fighting over what color the gun is that is already pointed at your head. an absurdity
get over yourself. or rather, you go on with your
Re: (Score:2)
There is only nothing you can do about it when it has happened - if we are still at the will happen stage then there is still something that can be done to try and stop it! The problem is that most people don't seem to care one way or the other - I guess that's one of the bad things about living in a democracy - however right you might think you are, if more people believer otherwise you are, by defi
(smacks forehead) (Score:2)
drivers license
social security number
passport
done deal, already happened
why don't some people understand the obvious: real id is not a change of status quo, it is merely a continuation of the status quo under a new name
it's the difference between arguing over whether or not there is a gun pointed at your head (valid fight) and arguing
dude (Score:2)
passport
social security nubmer
done deal
your fighting a war that was lost long ago
furthermore
"there is such a thing as false complacency"
-And we live in it today.-
i look forward to you using that line when you that the gw bush government is creating false fear and panic about terrorist threats to justify taking away our privacy rights
you don't have to accept false complacency, you don't have to accept false alarmism. but you can't claim one is the status quo the same time you claim the other i
lol (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course I also doubt the whole issue of technically not being allowed into a federal b
But... didn't the states vote for REAL ID? (Score:5, Insightful)
The other aspect of all this is that while Slashdotters are praising the states for standing-up for civil rights, the reality is that the states are fighting REAL ID because of funding issues, not because of civil rights issues. If the government tied federal funding of schools (or highways, or parks, or somethng) to the implementation of REAL ID, then the states would quietly fall-in line.
Re:But... didn't the states vote for REAL ID? (Score:4, Informative)
'bout fricking time (Score:2)
Cal Native (Score:2, Troll)
Why do I still live here? I'm a contract tech worker (Linux system administrator) and this is where the jobs are. Plus, the weather is better than most other places in the world. T
Interest threat model variable constraints ... (Score:2)
Everyone please read this article (Score:2, Insightful)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/ten-steps-to-close-down-a_b_46695.html [huffingtonpost.com]
Ten Steps To Close Down an Open Society
1 Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy
2 Create a gulag
3 Develop a thug caste
4 Set up an internal surveillance system
5 Harass citizens' groups
6 Engage in arbitrary detention and release
7 Target key individuals
8 Control the press
9 Dissent equals treason
10 Suspend the rule of law