Slashdot Mirror
Going to Yosemite? Get Your Passport Ready!
rev_media writes to tell us that CNN has a few updates to the Real ID act currently facing legislators. The Real ID acts mandates all states to begin issuing federal IDs to all citizens by 2008. Costs could be as much at $14 billion, but only 40 million are currently allocated. Several states have passed legislation expressly forbidding participation in the program, while others seem to be all for it. The IDs will be required for access to all federal areas including flights, state parks and federal buildings. People in states refusing to comply will need to show passports even for domestic flights.
But the wonderful thing about him is that, as a libertarian, he believes that the federal government has no role in deciding these issues. He would leave them up to the states to decide. In favor of women's reproductive rights? Create a petition to get the matter into your state legislature or constitution. Want single payer health care? Pressure your state representatives, or, again, get enough signatures to get it on your state's ballots.
Wow, people might actually start to feel like we have a representational democracy again, instead of a bunch of Washington insiders bought by corporate lobbyists!
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
There was a time when I couldn't imagine living in another country, not even as an exchange student. I've even turned down fantastic job offers from other countries because they simply weren't in America. But almost everyday now something happens, a law is passed, or another degree shaven off of what once made this country great is added to "Why isn't this the greatest country in the world anymore?" The next time a foreign job offer comes around, I'm probably going to take it, there's just not enough reasons not to these days. And even if one doesn't, Vancouver, BC is a very beautiful city. Get out while you still can.
The downside of being killed is the upside of being dead.
Y'all are missing the real Catch-22 here. How could a passport substitute for Real ID? A passport is a federal document. Once Real ID is in effect, no doubt you will need one to obtain or renew a passport, no? So if you have no Real ID, you can't use your passport instead, because you will need the ID to get or renew the passport. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
This battle isn't over yet by far, because in addition to the few states that have explicitly refused to participate, many others are discussing it in their legislatures, and some of those are leaning towards saying "drop dead" to the Feds as well. Sooner or later, we will reach a critical mass of states that represent a significant enough percentage of the U.S. population (and, hence, of voters) that would be classified as second-class citizens, and that will put the kibosh on the whole mess. I just hope those legislatures have some backbone....
You can keep up with the current status of Real ID legislation in the various states at the Real Nightmare website.
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
I'm sorry, but the more I hear of him, the more Thomas Jefferson sounds like a dangerous, deranged psychopath.
Well, the founding fathers committed an armed overthrow of the legitimate government. If you were to ask England, they were murderers, terrorists, and they committed treason. Had they not succeeded, they would have been executed as traitors to the crown.
The difference between a traitor and a patriot is often a matter of how successful one was. Fortunately for the United States, the people who started it's government did so because they wanted freedom from an oppressive government, rather than simply freedom to institute their own oppressive government. Unfortunately, there has been a sever slide towards tyranny in recent years.
We could use a few more patriots in this nation, even if it did result in some people dying in a revolution. The safest life is a solitary one in a padded cell, but I certainly wouldn't want to live like that. Besides, if it's acceptable for a soldier to fight (and give his life) to "preserve our way of life", why is it wrong to fight to better our way of life?
So in order to get your "Real ID" you have to possibly use a passport as one of your multiple documents, but if you dont HAVE a "Real ID" ID you only have to use your passport to get in and not the 3-4 other forms of ID you need JUST to get the Real ID license.
I had this same issue of stupidity getting my "Real ID" license from the NJ state DMV. In order to get my new license because of the federal rules, I needed a official copy of my birth certificate (one with a seal) which meant I needed to go to the court in the city I was born in. This was along with a bill with my official address, my credit card, and my bank card (since they refused to use my school work ID DESPITE it being a officially accepted means of showing ID by both the state AND the federal governments and pointing out this fact to them by UNDERLINING the print on her sheet showing her what she could use.)
You know what I needed to get my birth certificate, which counts for the most points in documents?
Picture ID with my name on it. Didnt matter from where. And could have been easily forged.
That was it.
This system is completely fucking flawed, and I swear it will be a Real ID toting terrorist who next strikes the US. Because our government is full of idiotic assholes who think safety comes from a stupid piece of plastic.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
Penn and Teller did a Bullshit episode on Mt. Rushmore and patriotism that was quite interesting. The 4 faces chosen where supposedly chosen because they were responsible for extending the frontier of the country, but also because they hated Native Americans. There are those who suggest that carving the faces of these 4 particular men into native land was a galactic fuck you.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Aah, love to hate the poor.
You're probably right, everyone at or below the poverty level deserves to be there. So it's not useful to feel sorry for them or try to help them get out of the situation.
I'm not arguing that no one is like this, but I'm arguing that there are probably a lot more than you realize. Unfortunately the people that get noticed are the people who abuse the situation, and as a result they make it harder for the other people who are in that situation through misfortune or who only have the natural talents to land a minimum wage job (which is substantially below the poverty level).
Watch In Pursuit of Happyness. Although everything turns out ok in the end, it's not a feel-good movie, and that was not its point. The point of the movie is to show how it is that you can try your absolute hardest and still fail through misfortune and bad decisions (which were only identifiable as bad in hind sight). If there weren't programs to help this guy get out of the situation he was in, he would not have been able to, as it was he had to risk everything he had, small as it was, on a long shot, and he got lucky. This is a true story.
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
You don't get out much, do you? Check out http://www.westegg.com/inflation/, and try the US from 1800-1850, and 1850-1900. Looking at the latter case first, what cost $100 US in 1850 cost $100.10 in 1900 - virtual price stability over half a century! In the former case, what cost $100 in 1800 cost less than $49 in 1850. Now read that last sentence over slowly for maximum comprehension - prices actually fell by half in the years 1800-1850.
From 1900-1950, prices roughly tripled. From 1950-2000, prices roughly went up by a factor of 7. So if you're trying to say that recent inflation has been less than it was in, say, the 1970's, I'll agree with you, but your original statement is pure nonsense.
Now maybe you mean cost of living. Yes that has gone up, but not so much do to increase costs, those have been steadily dropping as well in terms of real dollars, but in terms of people's expectations.
Now, this is truly hilarious. What is the substantive difference between "cost of living" and "inflation"? Here's the Statistics Canada definition of cost of living:
A cost-of-living adjustment is used to offset a change (usually a decrease) in the purchasing power of income. Cost-of-living adjustments modify future benefits, typically on an annual basis, to keep pace with inflation. These adjustments are usually linked to changes as measured by an index of movements in prices; the most widely used is the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
I'll be the first to admit that there are many different ways to measure inflation, although the CPI is often the most common. The "GDP deflator" is another popular measure; it is usually very close to the CPI figure.
Now, since you're clearly economically illiterate, let me fill you in a couple of not so widely hidden secrets. 1) Since both the US and Canadian governments are on the hook for huge entitlement programs, such as welfare, pensions, etc., all of which are subject to annual COLA changes, both governments have a vested interest in the keeping that COLA number as low as possible. Now, in 2003-2004, the average US household spent 34% of its net income on housing, 18% on transportation, and 13% on food; that's 65% of total disposable income. Doesn't leave a whole lot for those "wants" you rant on about, especially when you consider that health care and insurance/pensions eat up another 15% of income. (http://www.bls.gov/ro6/fax/cex_hou.htm) However, whenever you see "core CPI", it's usually accompanied by the phrase "not including volatile food and energy components". Meanwhile, housing expenses have been adjusted down to reflect the low rates people are paying on "teaser" mortgages that offered low initial rates, no down payment, no principal repayment, "overmortgaging" (i.e. providing a mortgage worth $130,000 on a $100,000 house - sweet, you've got $30k to buy a new car!), etc. Now, when those mortgages get reset this year and next (you have been reading about the sub-prime crisis, haven't you?), what do you want to bet that "volatile housing costs" will also be excluded from the government stats?
And that's not even discussing the "hedonic" adjustments, where beauraucrats attempt to divine how much recent improvements in processor speeds, lower RAM and disk costs, etc. have lowered the "real" cost of computing resources. (I'll be the first to admit that the 512k RAM, 10MB disk Mac that I bought for $3,000 Cdn in 1985 was far more expensive in real terms than the Dell Pentium4 running at 2.8 Ghz with 512 MB RAM, and an 80 GB hard disk for $800 Cdn paid two years ago.) However, how do you compute the decrease in the cost of living from having 4 blades on your razor instead of 2? From having 4 or 6 airbags in your car instead of 2? In short, the official statistics are giggered to produce a consistently
What was once true, is no longer so