Maine Rejects Federally Mandated ID Cards 621
WebHostingGuy writes "The State of Maine rejected the federally mandated ID cards passed by Congress. In a non-partisan vote the legislature flatly stated that they would not force its citizens to use driver's licenses that comply with digital ID standards, which were established under the 2005 Real ID Act. It also asked Congress to repeal the law."
Doctrine of Nullification? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Doctrine of Nullification? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Doctrine of Nullification? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Doctrine of Nullification? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Guess what happens. All the states set the same driking age....curious.
It's a way to force states to behave a certain way when the federal government has no authority to make such a rule itself. If the federal government actually had the authority, it would have just passed the law requiring the ID standards without tying it to highway funding.
Re:Doctrine of Nullification? (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, to argue the drinking age. Here is why 21 is bad. Is underage drinking a problem? Yes. Is binge drinking a problem? Yes, but one that has been a bit overblown. How to you solve both at once? Lower the age to 16. Here is why. Where do most 16 yr olds live? At home, with their parents who can teach them the importance of drinking responsibly while they are still at home. By having the drinking age 21, people are well into college before they can legally drink. For many college students, it is their first time away from home for any extended time. Without the parents around, the children will play and drinking becomes an issue. Since it is their first times drinking (and they are "unsupervised") they wound up into trouble situations. I could also use that old (and possible flawed) argument, "At 18 you are old enough to fight and die for this country, but you are not old enough to enjoy a little bit of alcohol." You will find that in the countries where drinking is legal, the countries with drinking ages of 21 are in the minority.
Re:Doctrine of Nullification? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is with the parents/parenting to begin with.
Americans are pretty psychotic with respect to things like mistakes, moderation, and honest communication.
Instead of these things, we like harder rules and harder punishments. Things like zero tolerance, mandatory minimums, 3 strike rules, police roadblocks.
There is a saying that goes something like "The firmer grip you use, the faster the the stuff squirts between your fingers". This is what is happening.
I live in one of the most policed conservative states in the US, and it sucks. Trust me, once your "in the system" its next to impossible to get out of it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Thank you, well said. This idea that not hitting your children means you're not disciplining them is nonsense. I have never and will never hit* my children, but I assure you they know when they have broken the rules. I was spanked growing up, and I
Re:Drinking Age (Score:4, Insightful)
On a note, when one turns to 18, he is adult, he usually moves to own his/her place, he can vote, he can be elected and he can/has to go to a army. So why not give all the rights to 18 year old at the same time when he/she comes fully liable on his/her own life?
Re:Drinking Age (Score:5, Interesting)
The average brit on the other hand has probably been drinking beer since about the age of 12 (younger if you count shandy) the amounts will have increased over the years, they have probably been really ill once on holiday and after enduring their parents laughing at them and talking very loudly the next morning they tend to have a much better idea when to stop.
I remember one party where I drank 4 frat boys under the table - what was scarey was it was sequential not parallel!! But then the beer there is in 330ml cans and only 3 or 4 percent!! Me I'm a real ale person - 6-8% and in pints (yes it comes in pints) or yards...
Both Ways (Score:3, Interesting)
In any case, Britain really does have some kind of a very different culture regarding alcohol. And that's speaking as a Canadian, a citizen of a country that's already pretty serious about its boozing (there are few
Re:Both Ways (Score:4, Funny)
Back in the days of yore, when I was a wee lad of 18, a couple friends of mine had met some ladies from Canada on a MUSE (yeah, it was the days of yore). Naturally, we scheduled a road trip to Toronto to physically meet them. We arrived at the hotel, they showed up with some Molson XXX and neglected to mention that its alcohol content was twice what we were used to. Being the young strapping college lad that I was, I immediately embarked on a mission to down four as quickly as I could (i.e., in about 10 minutes).
Half an hour later I was in the bathroom trying to conceal the sounds of my sudden alcohol content revelation.
About 2 in the morning, one of my buddies starts shaking me awake. "I think I'm gonna be... BLARGH!!" All over my shirt.
I learned my lesson, though, and was much better prepared for my next trip.
Re:Drinking Age (Score:4, Funny)
[*] before you mod me troll, that was what Sir Winston Churchill called a guy named Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yup, just sock the brain with enough alcohol to knock out an elephant before its development is complete, and then you wonder how these half-naked fakirs [*] are overtaking your economy. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6294409.stm [bbc.co.uk]
[*] before you mod me troll, that was what Sir Winston Churchill called a guy named Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.
That is interesting indeed. I had been told by Indians that Gandhi was called the "nanga fakir" [mouthshut.com] which they said meant "naked fakir" [chowk.com] although the most naked he is e
Functional Equivalence (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Functional Equivalence (Score:5, Insightful)
Old protection racket scheme, you pay for protection or you will need it. The US tested this and found it to work "nicely" for the IRS. If you don't pay them what they decide you owe they will come take it from you. Where did the Mafia get it? Probably from some government or another, perhaps the Vatican. Plenty enough documentation in history that the church sold you salvation, from them. Interestingly enough governmental oppression via taxation and/or church control is what brought most of our predecessors to the US. UK tried to control and milk the colonies via taxation etc..
Originally the federal government was supposed to be funded only by the graces of the states and tariffs and the states' governments controlled who went to the senate and thus their senators would protect the sovereignity of the states from popular demands and federal power seizures. Changing senators to popular elections shifted the balance of power, unfortunately it has taken power not just from the states but from the people. Of course you can also argue that the people have abdicated their power and/or that corporations have bought it away from them. Both in many ways are all too true, just like the public school system was set up to train you to accept and tolerate this kind of behaviour from the government and from corporations. I for one am convinced the major reason entrepreneurship is more prevalent among people who move into the US then those who grew up in within the public school system.
Only way I can see this changing is for those who are able to re-educate themselves to do so and try to influence others to do the same. We need to establish more entrepreneurship, including the family farms and we could use some truth in the newspapers etc too. We need to either retake our political parties or form new ones, from the grass roots level up. Got an elected official on the take? Vote him/her out irregardless if its legal contributions to them or not if they selling their vote they are selling their vote and they need to be voted down. Above all else we need to remind people that we should not rely on the government for everything. The more we ask of government the more power we have to give them to do it and eventually they start to claim they already have the power to add more on.
Common Sense Thomas Paine [ushistory.org]
I would suggest everyone re-read Common S
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ow, come on, I don't like the highway fund holdup scam either, but you are overstretching it. The mafia would actually proactively come and torch your place if you don't pay up, whereas the federal government isn't going to, like, send in the troops and destroy th
Re:Doctrine of Nullification? (Score:5, Insightful)
They need to question the constitutionality behind the way the law was passed in the first place. From the article, "A key Republican supporter of the Real ID Act said Thursday that the law was just as necessary now as when it was enacted as part of an $82 billion military spending and tsunami relief bill."
In other words some sleezy congress-critter appended it to a "must pass" spending bill, and we, the people, didn't get a chance to debate it, or determine if it was in fact "necessary" at all.
Great... (Score:5, Funny)
Now I can't decide WHERE to move! Can sombody outlaw something wicked in a place that doesn't have winter?
Replying to my own post (Score:3, Insightful)
The current British PM is a Scot. The current Home Secretary is a Scot. The next Prime Minister will most likely be a Scot. The Home Office is admittedly in chaos; we have severe prison overcrowding. The head of the Youth Offending division has just resigned and given an interview in which he complained of the criminalisation of the behaviour of young people a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's see the other 49 states stand up for themselves, too.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Doctrine of Nullification? (Score:4, Insightful)
1 state down, 49 left (Score:5, Funny)
The exponentially increasing transportation budget for side roads that get repaved with increasing frequency is another matter entirely. Oh and that whole laptop for children thing. Yes, I am a Maine resident. Like many young people, I'm out of here as soon as I graduate. Soon Maine will be come a state of elderly crotchety people, just like Florida, but without the beaches and spring break crowds.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It should hardly be relevent in the first place. It's not like you can drive a car around a depature lounge or along the aisle of a passenger aircraft. AFAIK it's also not a requirment that all people in the other 49 states must drive.
Amusing (Score:3, Funny)
I don't get it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That and, it is like the older anti-freedom groups like the Nazis and the USSR did use extensively.
Re: (Score:2)
Who said anything about telling people where they can and can't go? Why would an ID prevent you from going somewhere? Is there some secret clause in this law that states that once you receive this new ID, you must get permission before traveling over state lines? My Social Security card has never prevented me from going anywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that in travel via air is frequently the only practical way of getting around, requiring positive ID (and validation of said ID against a database, as the TSA is wont to do) before folks are allowed to fly is indeed a very significant step towards internal passports.
Not that this wasn't an issue previously; John Gilmore's attempts to fly anonymously (and tribulati
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not arguing about what is true; I'm arguing about what should be true. If we only focus on "well, this isn't worse than what we already have", we're never going to start digging our way back out.
Re:I don't get it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Please point out the section of the Constitution that authorizes the Federal government to require this.
And don't say "Commerce clause".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Please point out the section of the Constitution that authorizes the Federal government to require this
I'll show you as soon as you show me where in the Constitution it authorizes HUD, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and everything else our gov't does that is not specifically spelled out in the Constitution. Just because it's not stated, does not mean it is forbidden.
Re:I don't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, it is:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The fact that the federal government has abused the commerce clause and completly disregarded most of the constitution for some time now doesn't make this particular encroachment right.
Re: (Score:2)
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The fact that the federal government has abused the commerce clause and completly disregarded most of the constitution for some time now doesn't make this particular encroachment right.
Again, no one can tell me how this is a violation of rights. Does it limit free speech? Does it search your house? Does it take away you
Re:I don't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't matter if it violates any fundamental human rights like free speech, etc. The fact that it violates the states' rights and the people's rights by going far beyond what could reasonably be construed as "regulating interstate commerce" is enough to make it unconstitutional.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The passage that you reference reads:
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
Seeing that the Constit
Re:I don't get it. (Score:4, Informative)
technically yes, the marihuana act of 1937 was enacted to stop the influx of the mexican population fro getting in the USA, it did not make weed illegal, just you had to have a stamp and well the government wouldnt give you one (i am lazy wiki it if you care)
If a power is not listed in the Constitution, it is not supposed to be available to the Federal government which means if one wants something done at the federal level, it needs to be ratified and amended, which is why alcohol prohibition had an AMENDMENT.
When Nixon created the DEA congress said no because...its UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Unless the PEOPLE wanted this origination, than it would need to be amended, which of course would never happen. Long story short Nixon told congress where to stick it and TA'DA we have this stupid orginisation which ruins lives and polices the world. (again im lazy google it)
So to answer the question, the Ganjadude says UNLESS STATE LAW STATES that marijuana is illegal, (which most do) than its not.
you can legally possess up to 4 ounces in alaska, and 11 states have decriminalized possession of small amounts to nothing worse than a parking ticket while about the same use it medically
our president is an ex coke head yet he spends more cash locking up people for the same, what a crock
end rant
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's check out one way to read that, by choosing to delegate that power to the people:
There we go. Now if the people [wikipedia.org] decide to give that power of theirs to the national government by electing politicians to the legisla
Re: (Score:2)
The Hell it doesn't! Read it and weep:
Everything you mentioned -- HUD, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc. -- is, in fact, unconstitutional!
Re: (Score:2)
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
You mean Congress is not allowed to pass laws? What is their job exactly?
Everything you mentioned -- HUD, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc. -- is, in fact, unconstitutional!
Well, then I think you got bigger fish to fry than just a litt
Re: (Score:2)
I completely agree! However, there's no reason not to pursue this issue as well.
You may, but it would be stupid to do so:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, with regards to the Federal Government, it is forbidden. See The 10th Amendment [usconstitution.net].
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I believe it would be this:
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Spe
Re:I don't get it. (Score:5, Interesting)
With the Interstate Highway System, the feds provided money to states that wanted it and they could make very good cases for national defense.
With social security, the federal government issues the numbers and the cards. It's wholly a federal matter.
This law is instructing all states to comply with an arbitrary standard. They can't compel the states to do that. They must dangle money as a request.
Re: (Score:2)
What authority do they have to force me to pay for Social Security and have a card for that? What authority does the state of Maine have to set the standards for ID's?
Still that doesn't answer my question. All the pe
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I don't get it. (Score:5, Informative)
Especially in conjunction with the 16th.
The original structure was elegantly designed to limit federal expansion. Before the 16th and 17th:
Obviously, the Senate was very resistant to any expansion of the budget which would require their bosses (the state legislatures) to raise taxes.
The 16th and 17th were passed because this very deliberate limitation was seen as a problem. So it was corrected by removing the influence of the state legislatures over the US Senate and by giving the federal government the power to tax the citizens of the states directly. Obviously, this pretty much gutted the power of the states.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One problem is that more voting does not always equate to more democracy.
It essentially invalidates local politics in the minds of a lot of people, because they figure they already voted for someone who "outranks" state representatives, therefor they don't need to care.
Probaly also killed off the possibility of state and regional political parties.
We've g
Re: (Score:2)
Shades of 55 mph. That was the approach the federal government took in enforcing that standard. In that case Texas was the first state to say bite me. The states had more power when it was a confederation but they still have a lot of power. I wish they'd nail the Supreme Court for modifying the Constitution through interpretation. That's squarely a state po
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I don't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)
We're supposed to be an independent people distrustful of government. The people who founded this country overthrew their own government for fuck's sake.
"Why not?" should never be the standard for anything that enhances government power and/or limits individual liberty.
The standard should be "Why should we?".
And no, "We have to keep you safe." is not an adequate reason.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You've answered your own question. Those examples are merely indicative that we've gone too far already. How does it limit you? The simple fact you can't conduct
Re:I don't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)
So what? Enough with the FUD. I do not count the spectre of terrorism to be a valid reason, nor do I see this tiny bit of security a justification for the feds to violate the constitution again.
I don't want to be callous, but frankly, people are far too worried about terrorism. If you take a list of what causes people to die and how many people actually die from it, terrorism is waaaaay down the list. I think you are probably more likely to drown in a 12oz glass of fruit juice than you are to die in a terrorist act.
The "9/11" terrorists could have been caught without PATRIOT, without mandatory ID requirements or any of the other shenanigans. That incident happened because dozens of agencies simply dropped the ball. Nothing has been done since that actually fixes the problem to the slightest degree. They are all actions done under the guise of fixing them but are simply misdirections to make people think something is being done.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I hate put on my pointy hat, but in this day
Re:I don't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ummm, you do know that the sep. 11 hijackers had real genuine ID in their own names, right?
They don't need fake ID.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Wait, I thought monocultures were bad for security...
Mod parent -5, really fucking stupid (Score:3, Informative)
You unbelievable dipshit.
The reason why the 9/11 hijackers had legal IDs is because THEY WERE ENTITLED TO THEM! Each one was in the US legally, and each one legally obtained ID, using his own name. ID ensures nothing except a person's identity.
Having law enforcement figure out that an individual is planning some criminal activity before
Re: (Score:2)
The implication that it would lead to NAZI-style oppression is what's wrong with a national ID standard, and it's a legitimate argument. Trying to dismiss it out of hand does not change that!
Re: (Score:2)
The most convenient form of id (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I realize they're a small minority, but this may have a chilling effect on transsexuals.
Some cops & security personnel throw a fit if you're presenting as a woman but you have an "M" on your ID.
Right now, there are 50 separate jurisdictions with their own standards for how & when you can get new ID issued with your new gender. Some say you can change it if you're living full-time as a woman (pre-op). Some say you have to have sexual reassignment surgery first. I think there are even some stat
Re: (Score:2)
With all the furor it gets here on
Drivers licenses are not for identification (Score:5, Informative)
That should be reason enough for you. If you don't believe me, have your driver's license stolen (mine was), and try to get the stolen license invalidated. It's practicaly impossible to do, even if you have a police report in hand.
The problem is that everywhere a driver's license is used does not phone home to verify that the driver's license is in fact not stolen; so anyone who looks roughly like the picture on the front of the license (a biometric identification device intended to prevent fradulent use, BTW) can use the license to identify themselves as you, and there's no cross-check that they are in fact NOT you. This is roughly the same as if you did not do a reverse DNS check followed by a forward lookup on a contacting IP address to verify that the machine contacting you is in the domain which the claim to be from. Your SMTP server might as well be an open relay.
My personal experience ended up with them doing effectively nothing but charging me $25. I suggested that they place a sign on their desk that said "This Side Towards Enemy", since their processes were clearly not directed at the criminal(s) who stole my license.
-
As to privacy, when they swipe your license in a reader to allow you to purchase cold medicine in most large drugstore chains these days, they are in technical violation of the Patriot Act Section 711, 21 USC 830(e)(1)(A)(iv)(I)(bb), in not taking a written signature for the log book, and they are in violation of HIPPA.
The HIPPA violation is collection of more information than they are authorized by law to collect (name, address, and amount purchased); instead, they collect the entire three stripes of the license, which includes all the information in the AMMVA mandated standard ANSI D320-2003, which also includes type of license, whether or not you are a senior citizen, your age, sex, birthdate, identification number, expiration date of the license, endorsements, hair color, eye color, height, weight, restictions (handicaps relevent to driving), and the issue date.
The HIPPA violation, depending on whether the information is controlled according to HIPPA standards, could also constitute a second violation of the Patriot Act, Section 711, 21 USC 830(e)(1)(C)(ii): "prohibit accessing, using, or sharing information in the logbooks for any purpose other than to ensure compliance with this title or to facilitate a product recall to protect public health and safety" -- in other words, they better be damn careful about their information systems attached to their cach registers.
Think about that the next time someone asks you about a national ID card, or you have a cold and consider buying Sudafed.
-- Terry
Money over privacy? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Living here in Maine, let me assure you that privacy was discussed just as much as money. All your personal information; name, address, social security number, FINGERPRINT, all consolidated in one card and entered into a handy database for some shmuck to put on his government-supplied laptop to be stolen at Arby's.
No, thanks
High five, Maine. (Score:2)
One does the crime, all must pay (Score:4, Interesting)
How about punishing those who commit the offenses in such a way as to eliminate the desire of those, who would follow them, to commit the offense?
In the USA, States need to fight for the States' Rights as Maine just did, and as Wisconsin did by outlawing mandatory chipping of people.
This "pervasive" form of governing, or ruling, seems to becoming more and more "invasive". Some would argue, "...if you have nothing to hide, then what are you afraid of?" , of which my argument is, "I am a good civilian, so leave me alone."
Of course, all of my comments are IMHO.
Re:One does the crime, all must pay (Score:4, Insightful)
And, if your mere existence as a non-Muslim is sufficient to piss them off enough to blow you and themselves up, your response is what? To simply convert to avoid being the pisser? M'thinks not. They already want to kill me just because of what I do or don't believe. So, give me a plan -- an intelligent one -- that allows me to remain me and deal with those people.
A Way to get the Real ID Act to Fail (Score:5, Interesting)
It needs to be completely repealed. It was passed without discussion, without debate. It became law as a "rider" on a must-pass piece of legislation. With the Democrat Congress, its demise is more likely. We should contact Contact Congress [visi.com] and ask the law be repealed completely concerning the driver's license provisions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Bills getting attached to odd (Score:4, Interesting)
10.1 (Score:4, Insightful)
28 guys want military spending
31 guys want tsunami relifer
only 2 guys want both.
that means, lump them together, get 57 votes
Re: (Score:2)
How about "because politicians suck" instead?
No, really: this unrelated crap gets tagged on because politicans have no morals, and they want to push their agendas even when they're against the will of the people (not to mention the rest of the politicians). So, they tack stuff onto the bills at the last minute so that the issues don't have to be
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Line item veto is NOT the answer! I used to think it was, until I heard a great argument -- namely, in a well-functioning democracy (let's suspend disbelief here for a minute), laws are passed that are the result of debate & compromise by both sides. A line-item veto would be a tool for
Re:Bills getting attached to odd (Score:4, Interesting)
I think I'll e-mail my Governor.
Maine is not a commonwealth (Score:2)
Re:Maine is not a commonwealth (Score:4, Funny)
Federalism (Score:2)
Domino Theory (Score:2, Informative)
Someone had to be first to stand up to this. (I was betting on New Hampshire, which has been very vocal about their opposition, or Vermont based on their general countercultural eccentricties. But they all share a remnant of that good old Yankee stubborness.) Other states have voiced their concerns, but now that someone had the balls to be first, maybe more states will make their opinions known through their own legislatures.
Or maybe it means nothing at all, and all the states will eventually kowtow to thei
Goddamn straight (Score:4, Insightful)
But let's not give them too much credit. This is obviously another step toward removing already eroding privacy rights in this country. And of course the convenient excuse "war on terror" will be stamped all over this.
Let's get a run-down of what this will actually mean to the average consumer.
~ By "common machine readable technology", I'm assuming they mean RFID, which we all know has its drawbacks [eweek.com].
~ I doubt this will end up being a substitute for a Driver's License. What if you lose driving privilages and have to turn in your ID? Do you have to get a new "non-driver" card just to go to the bank? Bull shit. Inevitably, this will have to be carried around in addition to a driver's license. Great, another unnecessary card to carry in my wallet. Why don't they just make us all wear collars around our necks. Not like nobody's ever thought of that [westvalley.edu] before.
~ It will obviously be scanned at every point of use. I forsee an amendment in the near future extending this to train/bus travel as well.
~ Inevitably, this will be part of a big government database. We all know those are generally bad ideas [techdirt.com]. I wouldn't be surprised if they link this up to your EZ-Pass so they can see where your car is going too. Remember (FTA) this is an $83 billion project. It is going to be BIG. ~ What if you lose this thing? It's bad enough getting the state to replace an ID... who do I complain to now? The FBI? Dept of Homeland Security?
I don't even want to think about this anymore. Go Maine.
Re:Goddamn straight (Score:4, Insightful)
Except that this isn't always a bonus. Since the one card may come with various abilities you may rarely, even never, want to use. An analogy would be would be is it better to carry one "master key" to every door you might possibly want to open any time in your life or a bunch of keys for the doors you regularly use.
The driver's license is supposed to identify the user anyway, so it only makes sense to make it a real ID.
All the "identity" it needs is to prove that the holder is the holder for a fairly restricted set of activities. i.e. those related to driving a vehicle on public roads.
It won't last. Maine needs the $$$'s. (Score:2, Interesting)
What I predict will happen is that the Federal government will start by holding back the money that they would disperse to the state for highway dollars just like they have done for other measures. (The ones that come to mind is seat-belt and drunk driving laws but I know that there are others.). If holding back Federal highway funds they will find other funds not to give the state.
Re:It won't last. Maine needs the $$$'s. (Score:4, Interesting)
It'd be interesting to see a state respond by saying "OK, if the Federal government doesn't want to pay for it's Interstate highways, it can have them back. Oh, and it can also have back all responsibility for maintaining them, enforcing the laws on them, clearing snow off them in the winter, the lot. We wish them luck with it, and if anyone finds the conditions deteriorating they know where they can call the owners.".
bullies (Score:5, Insightful)
It is profound for several reasons. You shouldn't fight the bully head on, they are bigger and (in this case) control the White house and the Army.
But you make it hurt, a lot (you "stomp"), but you do it below the vision of most people watching.
You stand right up to the bully, to their face and make them face you. Most bullies are craven and will crumble at the first sign of real resistance.
Bush Psychology -- http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011807J.shtml [truthout.org]
This is just the first step in a long, painful road to recovery for this nation.
Congress can win this very easily (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally I have no problem with congress appointing non-government experts to define minimum security standards for important documents. But congress is treating RealID as a security end in itself.
SS (Score:3, Insightful)
I just dont get it ! (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not now talking about president Bush's ridiculous terrorist fíght. I'm talking about someone else using bank account or getting my private medical information. Or opening a bank account under my name and getting a big loan.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I just dont get it ! (Score:5, Insightful)
As a European, you've probably grown up under an oppressive nanny-type government
Legal drugs, legal prostitution, legal abortion, legal porn, legal drinking age of 16 (and not much policing below it)... real oppressive and nanny-like, yeah. Fix yourselves first.
Re:I just dont get it ! (Score:5, Insightful)
Dirigo (Score:3, Interesting)
By the way, in 1839 the Governor of Maine decared war on England over a boundary dispute with New Brunswick. This was the only time a state has decared war on a foreign power. The conflict was settled before any blood was shed.
People dont care for privacy. Really! (Score:4, Interesting)
1. Frequent shopper cards from grocery stores so that they get 25cents off a loaf of bread. In return they let their grocery shop+pharmacy uniquely brand them with a number and track all their purchases, from birth control pills to diapers.
2. Use credit cards even after they send them a year end profile of expenses, making it a no secret how much data they collect and retain
3. are least bothered by the extensive data collection by their banks and their "partners" who pelt them with "new and exciting products".
Come on guys. The private sector is a bigger threat to your privacy and well being than US Govt is. You have some semblance of control over US govt, whereas you have none over the private sector. The interests of US Govt coincides with the interests of people lot more than the interests of private sector overlapping the interests of people.
But if you want mod points and build your karma, you have to blast the govt.
Re: (Score:2)