Skip to main content

It's just beyond me why more Congressional Democrats have not seized upon Real ID as an issue that could split the Republican party down the middle.

From almost every perspective, the 2005 Real ID Act is reprehensible. Its most obnoxious component creates in effect a national ID card by imposing draconian restrictions upon how states may issue drivers licenses. It requires the states to conduct expensive (and essentially impossible) background checks, and create and share databases with extensive personal information for all drivers. It also requires that airline passengers and anyone seeking to enter a federal building in the future must present a Real ID, or face extensive screening and delays. There's every reason to believe that in the not too distant future, the uses of this nascent national ID card would be extended both in public and private spheres until it became nearly impossible to do without one. Furthermore, the state databases would almost certainly be fed into federal systems, including data-mining programs like Total Information Awareness (or whatever the government is calling its Orwellian program now). It's hard to believe as well that these vast state databases could be kept secure from snoopers and identity-thieves, when so many "low-level" employees will have direct, daily access to them. Real ID is a nightmarishly bad idea.

Drafted by the slightly daft James Sensenbrenner and inserted in the conference report for a must-pass emergency appropriation bill (for tsunami relief), Real ID was enacted without debate, without hearings, without input from Democrats. Like the Patriot Act, also rushed through in an underhanded and undemocratic way, Real ID gives the federal government sweeping powers – some of them apparently unconstitutional – while suppressing the means to resist it. For example, Real ID has a provision stripping courts of jurisdiction in any federal seizure of private land in the "vicinity" of national borders, for vaguely defined security purposes.

Real ID is opposed fervently by voters and interest groups across the political spectrum, especially among liberals and libertarians but also many small-government and states-rights conservatives. It's constituency consists mainly of Sensenbrenner, Michael Chertoff, the Heritage Foundation, neocon bedwetters, and the extreme fringes of the anti-immigrant booboisie.

It's widely resented in nearly every corner of the country, especially in western states where Democrats are positioned to capitalize on growing resentment of Republican arrogance and abuse of power. Gov. Schweitzer of Montana has told the federal government it can "go to hell" as far as pushing Real ID on his state.

 title=Very few states are even remotely eager to implement the ID requirements, if only because they amount to a hefty unfunded mandate. The Real ID Act also represents a direct challenge to the states' co-equal status with the federal government, as enshrined in the Tenth Amendment. Fully 19 state legislatures have passed bills or resolutions opposing Real ID: AR, CO, GA, HI, ID, IL, ME, MI, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, ND, OK, SC, TN, UT, and WA. Most of the remaining states are considering similar proposals.

Indeed Arizona is on the verge of joining the states resisting Real ID:

"I have problems with both Real ID and the 3-in-1 driver's license and the reason is the same for both. They are way too intrusive, and they won't make us any safer," said state Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix.

"I hope they both go down in flames," said state Sen. Karen Johnson, R-Mesa. "I think we're doing fine with what we have."

That could cause John McCain some embarrassment this year. Of the presidential candidates only McCain backs this boondoggle, whereas Barack Obama strongly opposes it.

Opposition makes good politics across the country. For example, of Real ID's critics on Capitol Hill, few are more prominent than Tom Allen. If enacted his bill to repeal Real ID, H.R. 1117, could give Allen a major boost in his Senate race in Maine, the state that has led the national opposition to the Act. Yet depressingly Allen's bill is stalled in the House subcommittee on Government Management, Organization, and Procurement, where it was referred one year ago today.

This is just another instance in which Democrats are handed an emotive issue to belabor the Republican party with. It's an issue dear to Democrats at the state-level around the country, one that could solidify support among Independents while fracturing the Republican base. It could help to revolutionize the image of the Democratic party as a bulwark of individual rights. And yet Democrats in Congress sniff and turn away, almost as if the issue were beneath them.

And yet the Bush administration has shown again and again that it's desperate to avoid being cornered on the issue. DHS has quietly abandoned some of the law's more onerous requirements, and twice postponed the implementation of Real ID. This January's "final rule" allows states to push the first phase of implementation back until 2010 as long as they submit a written request for an extension to DHS by March 31.

Except that several states, including Maine and South Carolina, have declined to request an extension. New Hampshire sent DHS a letter that was rejected as insufficiently submissive.

Something remarkable happened this week when Montana refused to ask for an extension. The response from DHS was to give Montana an extension anyway. It's clear that DHS backed down from a confrontation it knows it cannot win.

Montana governor Brian Schweitzer declared victory Friday after the Department of Homeland Security sent his state an extension to the Real ID act, despite his insistence Montana will never comply with a mandate he describes as a "boondoggle."

"If I were writing the headline, it would be 'DHS Blinks," Schweitzer, a Democrat, told THREAT LEVEL by phone late Friday.

The AP adds:

Schweitzer, Montana's Democratic governor, said his state had not backed down.

"We sent them a horse. If they choose to call it a zebra, that is their business," said Schweitzer.

The agency's approach to Montana could provide an easy way out for the remaining states resistant to Real ID — and suggests the federal government doesn't want to go ahead with its plan to conduct extra screening on residents of certain states.

The deadline this month, and DHS' absurd threat to disrupt airline screening for passengers from non-compliant states, is causing even more states to think about standing up to Chertoff. California is now edging in that direction, sending in a letter that pointedly refrains from declaring that it will implement Real ID. And just as quickly DHS is trying to sweep the confrontation under the carpet.

Homeland Security spokesman Laura Keehner...said California's commitment to thinking about commitment is good enough.

"For right now, there is nothing that says they will not comply with Real ID," Keehner said.

For the Bush administration, then, it's about saving face. Now is the time for Democrats to go on the offensive on Real ID. The cracks have already appeared in the wall; why not drive home the wedge?

I'd urge you to contact the Democratic members of the House Government Management, Organization, and Procurement subcommittee and ask them to move on Tom Allen's bill to repeal Real ID (H.R. 1117):

Edolphus Towns, Chairman
Paul E. Kanjorski
Christopher S. Murphy
Peter Welch (a co-sponsor of the bill)
Carolyn B. Maloney

Update Here are some good recent diaries about Real ID: On Susan Collins' attempt to stem opposition to it in Maine (by ACLU); on Rep. Tom Allen's bill in Congress (by Spud1); and on Gov. Brian Schweitzer's smack down of DHS (by JayAckroyd).

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:59 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  We were at the airport (26+ / 0-)

    a couple weekends ago, at Dulles. There is a new program called Clear something or another that will enable people to get through security faster. For a monthly fee of $100 you can fill out the paper work, be fingerprinted and retina scanned, pass a security clearance and then be issued a "high-tech" card which will enable you to walk right through security without all the taking off of shoes and such. All they want is your card, fingerprint and retina scan. For $100 a month. Along with all your personal information. Scary stuff.

    •  So money buys privileges (12+ / 0-)

      Nothing like another barrier separating the haves and the great unwashed.

      "Great men do not commit murder. Great nations do not start wars." William Jennings Bryan

      by Navy Vet Terp on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:10:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Perhaps they should name that line... (8+ / 0-)

      "Express lane for rich fascist-lovers!"

    •  We need more TRIANGLE states!!!<> (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Clio2

      "He not busy being born is busy dying." R. Zimmerman

      by RUKind on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:55:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  They already know all about you (0+ / 0-)

      Unless you're willing to tear up your credit cards, walk everywhere, and demand you employer pay you with a brown paper bag full of cash, they (whoever they may be) already know all about you. They can data mine your purchases to such a level that they know when you'll buy your next roll of toilet paper.

      Now I will confess I don't know all the details of the REALID act beyond what I read on the wikipedia. I will also say that there is way too much crap in that bill on border protection and tightening rules on them dirty aliens (of which I am one).

      But when it comes to enacting standards on making driver's licenses throughout the country, what's the big freaking deal? Most countries in Europe have it. With a little effort, I imagine a cop in NY would have no problem finding out ANYTHING they want about somebody, even if their ID was from Idaho. 'Tis the internet age, right?

      The fight against national ID standards is just misplaced. Instead of going after the people who abuse our privacy (current administration, which should have been imprisoned some years ago for this), we let them get away with it, and then focus our efforts on proxy fights, like negating them a unified ID standard. What's next? Running encrypted phones over the internet? Sending that postcard to your friends in AES-encrypted hex string? I mean, should we really go so far out of our way to inconvenience law breakers?

      Also, to cont. my rant, TFA says:

      Furthermore, the state databases would almost certainly be fed into federal systems, including data-mining programs like Total Information Awareness (or whatever the government is calling its Orwellian program now). It's hard to believe as well that these vast state databases could be kept secure from snoopers and identity-thieves, when so many "low-level" employees will have direct, daily access to them. Real ID is a nightmarishly bad idea.

      Personally, I'd trust one system to be secured a lot sooner than 50 separate systems. When you say "vast state databases", it isn't like they don't already exist, you know. A cop in his cruiser can pull up a lot of info on you in 3 seconds. A national ID standard changes nothing. 10-20 years into the future, I imagine they will do away with passports and IDs as separate things - you will carry one little plastic card on you that will be your driver's license, your national ID, and your passport, all at once.

      That being said, ramming all that immigration/border stuff into this bill is just typically Washington stupid, and the bill should be opposed on those grounds.

      •  I think you are mistaken (0+ / 0-)

        about the extent of present government awareness of everything about everybody. The potential is certainly incresing, but I do not yet think we are in a Total Information Awareness state. Many pieces of information exist, and many databases, but they do not by any means all "talk" to one another. Significant inefficiencies and incompetencies within all such systems also limit the systems.

        For example, think of all the people on the "terrorist watch list" who don't belong there. Multiply this incompetency across a range of not-fully-integrated information systems.

  •  Duh! I was waiting for someone to bring this up! (16+ / 0-)

    Evangelicals think of 666 when they hear of Real ID.

    Actually I haven't found one voter that likes the idea.

    I predict this will be HUGE  in the GE.

    I will drink the Clinton Campaign Champagne 'cause Kool-aid is for kids!

    by Shhs on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:05:57 PM PDT

    •  it has no constituency (14+ / 0-)

      That is, other than people who are so terrified of the spectre of terrorism that they're willing to surrender all their rights and cower in the back of a closet.

      It would be huge this year if only Democrats had the sense to push it hard. You've got states openly in revolt against the federal government, poking their fingers in the eyes of DHS, daring the feds to cut their funding. And Democrats in the House (HR 1117) and Senate (S 717, a bill introduced by Sen. Akaka) are sitting on their hands doing nothing.

    •  The Party that comes out loud and proud (6+ / 0-)

      against this additional Mechanism of Tyranny will be the party that wins at least the Independents by 20-30%, imo.

      Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

      by Jim P on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:26:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  "Show me your papers, citizen" (5+ / 0-)

      the ads will write themselves.

      "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed." -Nancy Pelosi, 6/29/07.

      by nailbender on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:18:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Never! (0+ / 0-)

        and with no regulation on airlines, no inspection I sure don't want to fly anyway.

        If we want peace, why do we give weapons and call it "aid"?

        by gdwtch52 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:23:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Some of us have no choice. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CParis

          I have a business to run that spans two states and necessitates travel by air.  I see a LOT more videoconferencing in my future....

          "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

          by SueDe on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:42:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Interesting point... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Clio2, James Kresnik

      I got one of those emails-- the ones that become viral -- warning about this or something very similar, and the whole "666" was brought up.  Since McCain backs this proposal does he support "the mark of the beast"!!??  Oh if I were just Rovian, what I couldn't do with that here in KY...

    •  I encountered a Real Id supporter (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Clio2, RUKind, world dancer

      I must say I was surprised that anyone likes this idea, but this very sweet, older lady is convinced that the US is on the verge of being invaded by terrorists and the only way to tell US citizens from the bad guys is by our Real Id cards.

      It is really sad that the Bush Administration has managed to promote the fear message.

      •  Thank you (0+ / 0-)

        for reporting what people outside our community are thinking. It's tough to face, I think, but we will have to deal with irrational thinking, and the more we know about it, the better.

        This is on my mind because I recently returned from a trip to L.A., where among others, I talked at length with two different white women over 60 whom I liked and admired for their warmth and courage in theur personal lives, while I was amazed and appalled at the knee-jerk racism that spilled from them -- and their extended families. They were in widely diffferent economic circumstances, but both, when thinking about local and economic problems, seemingly automatically, blamed "Mexicans" when they could and beyond that -- did not seek for any answers. The anti-"Mexican" knee-jerk reaction seemed to into an automatic negativity towards people "of color," including Obama. Both admitted that they got virtually all their news from television. The encounters kind of shook me up. I guess I've been awfully sheltered, and now see that these kinds on non-thinking have to be dealt with also.  

  •  I don't see the problem? (5+ / 0-)

    Why should the federal government not implement a uniform ID standard for interstate travel?  Isn't there a public interest in streamlining identification requirements?

    •  Colossal threat to privacy, civil liberties (15+ / 0-)

      Good background article:

      Backlash mounts against REAL ID

      Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change. - Tennyson

      by bumblebums on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:12:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You're kids will have 'em embedded subcutaneously (0+ / 0-)

        Along with a GPS tracking unit and a proximity detector to know where you've been and who you've seen. Your visual and aural cortices will be wired for external access. The day's take will be run through the TIA system to determine your patriotism and purchasing habits.

        This will all be just fine because it will keep the terrorists away and your kids will be safe. The real problem will arise when the wiring is used to provide your visual and aural feed. But then again, the kids won't have to think for themselves anymore. Then again, after another generation of NCLB they won't be able to anyway.

        Think Coppertop.

        Shanti.

        "He not busy being born is busy dying." R. Zimmerman

        by RUKind on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:05:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  so would you need it when driving across borders (4+ / 0-)

      soon as well?

      You really want a national ID card? For what possible purpose except to track citizens subjects?

      •  Uh... (4+ / 0-)

        They are already requiring passports.  Would it be better if we called it a passport?

        TexasDemocrat
        Giggity giggity giggity...Iraq's a Quagmire

        by TexasDemocrat on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:30:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  across state borders? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Nightprowlkitty, Neon Mama

          You mentioned Real ID for interstate travel. We don't need passports in the US for interstate travel. That's the kind of thing I associate with East Germany.

          Papiere bitte!

          •  Well... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Neon Mama

            I have to show my photo ID to check in at the airport, no?

            Granted, it is not required at the border of Texas and Louisiana, but if it were, how different would most American's lives be?  If you think this is going to be a big issue, I would suggest that this is really not to most Americans.  To Americans, it is a bigger issue/pain in the tail that tavern owners in NY have to figure out what a fake Texas license looks like to verify drinking age, not that anyone knows that they traveled to Louisiana or NY.  The feds can just check my credit card records if they want to know where I've been.  

            As a story, I was once denied access to a bar in NY because my Texas driver's license, issued by the Department of Public Safety, was not an "official DMV license".  My explanations to the bouncer that a DMV license in Texas WOULD be the fake, since there ain't no Texas DMV license, went ignored.

            TexasDemocrat
            Giggity giggity giggity...Iraq's a Quagmire

            by TexasDemocrat on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:53:30 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Why should you have to show it? (4+ / 0-)

              I don't want to know who you are, all I want to know is that you're not going to try to destroy the plane or hijack it.

              And a driver's license can't tell you that at all

              how different would most American's lives be?

              Not much. It's called boiling the frog.

              To Americans, it is a bigger issue/pain in the tail that tavern owners in NY have to figure out what a fake Texas license looks like to verify drinking age

              You have to be kidding. I don't think the fake bar id is such a big problem that it requires the federal government to step in and turn us into the USSR.

              You know what? If some 19 yr old texan does manage to get some beers on his visit to NY, I think we can live with that. For one, alcohol should be available to those 18 and over, and younger yet with parental supervision.

              So you're arguing for a violation of our rights, by giving us an example of another violation of our rights.

              My explanations to the bouncer that a DMV license in Texas WOULD be the fake, since there ain't no Texas DMV license, went ignored.

              So go to another bar where they're not retards. I'm sure the others would love the tourist business that that one was turning away.

              •  Well... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                CParis

                Not sure you're ever going to be able to tell from ANY ID whether I have some future intent or capability.

                And my story was to show how ridiculous it is to have so many different FORMS of identification, rather than a national standard for them.  It's kinda like states printing their own form of dollars, doesn't make sense.

                And, for the record, I think any rule that restricts anything over the age of 18 is ridiculous, but it has nothing to do with privacy issues.

                TexasDemocrat
                Giggity giggity giggity...Iraq's a Quagmire

                by TexasDemocrat on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:08:26 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Your story. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  DarkMysteri

                  And my story was to show how ridiculous it is to have so many different FORMS of identification, rather than a national standard for them.  

                  If you were clearly old enough to drink, that should have been enough to let you do so. Hell, what would they have done if you were from Germany or India?

                  Your story illustrates a problem, yes, several even. But "lots of different IDs" isn't one of them.

                  It's kinda like states printing their own form of dollars, doesn't make sense.

                  Actually, given the way the Federal Reserve Notes are tanking, it isn't all that unsensible.

                  And, for the record, I think any rule that restricts anything over the age of 18 is ridiculous, but it has nothing to do with privacy issues.

                  If they can use it as an argument somehow to push their Orwellian vision of conformity on us, it has everything to do with it.

                  •  Well... (0+ / 0-)

                    I wasn't "clearly old enough to drink", I was like 23...

                    The Germans would have their passports, which largely conform to international standards.  No Big Brother there...

                    And if you don't think states printing their own currency is a problem, you have some history to read, my friend.

                    TexasDemocrat
                    Giggity giggity giggity...Iraq's a Quagmire

                    by TexasDemocrat on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:37:21 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Didn't mean that. (0+ / 0-)

                      I just think it's not much more of a problem than we have now, but it'll take awhile before that's obvious to all.

                    •  At the bottom of the thread... (0+ / 0-)

                      I'm with you on this one. A lot of these opponents of ID standards are full of slippery slope arguments.

                      Somehow, a national standard for an ID document will bring Stalin back from the grave and re-institute Gulags. Furthermore, within a few years, our children will undergo chip implanting upon birth, and will be incinerated if the implant is unsuccessful.

                      Well, you know what - we already have Gulags; the Bush administration made sure of that. There's no more privacy left, thanks to the NSA datamining and again, this administration being hell bent on building a police state.

                      And all of this BEFORE the national ID standard has been passed.
                      You want to fight privacy erosion, impeach these bastards. That will send a pretty clear message on protecting privacy.

            •  it's in the Constitution: (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              smintheus, esquimaux, James Kresnik

              it's called the 4th amendment.  It prohibits unreasonable search and siezure:

              The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

              My fingerprints are mine.  So are my personal records.  If there is ample cause to investigate same, the Constitution requires a warrant.

              What a pass we have come to when we have to argue these basics.

              "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed." -Nancy Pelosi, 6/29/07.

              by nailbender on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:39:07 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Police have a right to ask for ID (0+ / 0-)

                Your fingerprints are uniquely yours, so is your face. But that face and fingerprints can and are used to identify you.
                The Vin # on your car is yours--but thats whats used to identfy it. they don't seize the VIN when they check your car out, just note it down.  The police have the right to seize your driver's license in some states immediately (as in drunken driving cases). The driver's license isn't yours, its the state's. ( so is a passport)

                You have to, by law, nationwide, identify youself to police whan asked tot do so. and its entirely reasonable and legal for them to ask for it. this has nothing to do with search and seizure. if you don't or refuse to ID yourself, you can be held untill your identity is established. It works this way in virtually EVERY country.

                You may not like it but that's what is

                If Liberals REALLY hated America we'd vote Republican

                by exlrrp on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:29:36 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  the idea of a national identity card (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              James Kresnik

              gives me the willies.

              I feel it takes us just one step closer to the world of "Minority Report" or whatever your favorite dystopian science fiction novel is.

              Once such a document exists, I promise you, you will be asked to produce it every time you turn around.

              Right now there is no law requiring you to carry your driver's license if you are not driving. Soon there would be laws requiring us to carry the national identity cards at all time.

              Does that not bother you at all?

              •  Many states (0+ / 0-)

                Require carrying ID, Texas is one of them.  It does not require a driver's license, because a DL is a "privilege" recall (so they can rip it from you, thank you MADD)...so they have Sheriff's ID's.

                Also, Social Security Numbers are already used for this purpose, and have been for years.  Access to numbers and ID's are not the problem, access to data attached to those is a problem...so let's fight access to the data, tracking and logging of those who are accessing the data (so I can see who is looking at me), rather than fighting the form of the ID's themselves...

                TexasDemocrat
                Giggity giggity giggity...Iraq's a Quagmire

                by TexasDemocrat on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:12:05 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  If a National ID card could serve as (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TexasDemocrat

          a drivers license and a passport and was difficult to counterfeit, I think it might help with the illegal alien problem and provide greater security when traveling.  Most company ID cards are coded for special access and greater access would require more extensive screening.  Similarly, your National ID card could be encoded for only those extra benefits or privileges you applied for.  It also would probably be more difficult to have your identity stolen.  

          Having served in the military and reserves, I was not given a choice but issued an ID card.  My state issued me a driver's license but it was at my request.  When I moved, I had to get another from the new state, a waste of time in my estimation that a National ID card could alleviate.

          The current legislation could be flawed but I believe we could come up with an acceptable program that would proved security with a minimum of intrusion of personal privacy.

          •  Are you kidding? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            smintheus, Clio2

            The current legislation could be flawed but I believe we could come up with an acceptable program that would proved security with a minimum of intrusion of personal privacy.

            Have you not been paying attention for the last seven years? They don't give a shit what some law says, they will do what ever they want. The have broken the law literally millions of times during the Bush Administration-- FISA, wiretapping, PBA, the friggin' 4th Amendment-- they put party above all else-- they do not care about the Constitution.

            You honestly don't think they will link your ID card to voter registration files, emails, web history, charitable donations, known acquaintances, recent movements, etc? Do you not think you will have to show ID to walk into a store or to buy gas, or condoms, or ammunition? Do you think you would be able to attend a protest without showing your ID?

            You argue that if you move, it will eliminate the hassle of getting a new ID. Right. Do you think the federal government is just going to accept your new alleged  address over the phone? They are going to demand proof before they register you in a new state. At best, you are going to go to the same DMV office, at worst, you will be dealing with the federal government directly.

          •  Post your ID number (0+ / 0-)

            online and see how fast you lost your identity. Next thing you know, you are banned from leaving your hosue because you are involved in tons of criminal activities. (sorry, no recourse)

            What? you think your number is secure?

          •  "People have no right to privacy (0+ / 0-)

            in their public travel"?

            Yes and no. For example, if someone sees you driving down the street, they see you, and the fact that you are there is not private. If the person who sees you is a police officer, he or she can stop you, can check your license and auto registration, but cannot search your car without permission unless there is some probable cause. Nor are you generally required to account for your presence, to justify where you are going and where you came from. You definitely are not required to notify the police in advance before you get in your car to drive down to the mall -- or across country to see your cousins. So you do enjoy some privacy in your personal travel.

            lobo charlie, I appreciate that you find it annoying to have to get a new driver's licence in case you again move from one state to another in the future. But I think that the extensive personal documentation and intrusive background checks required for a national ID will be even more annoying, and a lot more expensive for all of us as taxpayers. Kind of like using a nuke to swat a flea in that case.  

        •  Not since passport file PEEK GATE? n/t (0+ / 0-)

          De fund + de bunk = de EXIT--->>>>>

          by Neon Mama on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:19:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Efficiency (0+ / 0-)

        I am only half playing devil's advocate.  Why shouldn't people be willing to be tracked?  I have no problem with it.  Do people have a right to privacy in their public travel?  Absolutely not.  As long as there is no violation of privacy, the government has every right to know your public whereabouts.  I know that people would like to think they have a constitutional right against this, but they don't.  What's the principled objection, other than wanting to keep power out of the hands of the federal government?  

        Always interesting to see where the states' rights argument crops up.  I detect echoes of George Wallace in all of this barking about "unfunded mandates."

        •  I'll bite. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          smintheus

          As long as there is no violation of privacy, the government has every right to know your public whereabouts.

          The government tracking my whereabouts is, in itself, a violation of my privacy. As someone said upthread, what's next - needing government permission in order to travel across state lines? This is an issue that liberals and "real" conservatives should have no problem agreeing upon - unless the government has probable cause to suspect you of criminal activity (and gets a warrant), then it is flatly unconstitutional, and un-American, for the government to have its nose in your business.

          •  Oh really? (0+ / 0-)

            unless the government has probable cause to suspect you of criminal activity (and gets a warrant), then it is flatly unconstitutional, and un-American, for the government to have its nose in your business.

            Oh really?  Is that why I had to register for the Selective Service, or just had to fill out the Census long form describing my income, commute time, personal amenities, and employment?  Or why all of my personal criminal information is available online?  Do you have a problem with these things?  Frankly, I don't, because it's something we accept as part of citizenship.

            I'm saying all of these things are important if we believe that the government is a vehicle for collective action.  We sacrifice some freedoms because in the long run we're better off and more free if we do.  

            But, as we've seen in this entire thread, the argument against REAL ID, or database merging, is completely based on slippery slope fallacies.  "What's next?" people ask.  Well, who the hell knows.

            As I've said, if you want a strong federal state, you're going to have to accept a strong federal presence in your life.  Unless you can provide a principled objection, rather than a slippery slope horror story....

        •  "Why shouldn't people be willing (0+ / 0-)

          to be tracked?"  

          Why should they be willing to be tracked?  

          Why is the h**l should any human being who calls himself a man (or herself a woman, for that matter) be "willing to be tracked," like a f*****g convicted criminal with an ankle bracelet?

    •  Does the phrase "mechanisms of tyranny" (8+ / 0-)

      ring any bells?

      Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

      by Jim P on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:25:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Internal passports? (8+ / 0-)

      Unfunded mandates?
      Not-so-secret attempt at further eroding privacy?

      Hell, why not just have every baby tattooed with a barcode at birth?

      Isn't there a public interest in streamlining identification requirements?

      Actually, there is a public interest in keeping the government as inefficient as possible. Especially in this. The government has no business trying to identify people, and should have little interest in doing so. An adult citizen that can legally vote, for instance, shouldn't even have to present ID. This doesn't solve voter fraud, it never can. But it can control people.

      A government has no business trying to identify you when you fly. This can't solve terrorism. Which is more dangerous, the anonymous unarmed man, or the bomber who presented a Real ID at the checkin counter? And yet, attempts to do the identification thing tell us which the government considers more dangerous.

      If you love corporations, they have lots of reasons to want a better identification process. And hey, who doesn't love corporations?!

      •  Bravo! (0+ / 0-)
        Actually, there is a public interest in keeping the government as inefficient as possible. Especially in this. The government has no business trying to identify people, and should have little interest in doing so. An adult citizen that can legally vote, for instance, shouldn't even have to present ID. This doesn't solve voter fraud, it never can. But it can control people.

        If you love corporations, they have lots of reasons to want a better identification process. And hey, who doesn't love corporations?!

        A hundred recs if I could!

        Regarding the Rule of Law, I can be considered a single issue voter.

        by James Kresnik on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:18:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The problem becomes class differences (0+ / 0-)

        in identification. I don't know whether we should make a national ID mandatory, but as long as we don't have any free national ID card, then those who have driver's licenses, for examples, would have advantages in the field of identification, wouldn't they? And furthermore, how would we combat problems like multiple voting and non-citizen voting without disenfranchising poor voters unless we have a free national ID card?

        •  Multiple voting... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Olds88

          Isn't something that can be fought against with IDs.

          Show up with one ID at one polling place, another ID at a different place an hour later?

          Besides, that doesn't happen as often as they say, especially as often as the goddamned republicans say it does. Besides being a really fucking crude method of stealing election, it's just impractical. Even if you find just 50 people willing to do this, and even if they can somehow hit 8 different polls each, that only buys you 350 votes (the first time they voted, it was legit). This is a decent value in local elections, but less so in state elections. And practically none in federal. And if you have 50 people doing this, humans are so awful at conspiracies that someone will sing.

          If you dial it back down to a point where you have a chance of keeping the secret, its value drops immensely.

          and non-citizen voting

          This was meant to rile the Lou Dobbs/Rush Limbaugh crowd.

          Illegal immigrants are either too busy working shitty jobs (reality) or trying to drink away mescal hangovers (Rush Limbaugh slander) to cheat at the polls... it's strange that anyone would fall for it. Even the freerepublic/redstate crowd.

          And even if both things happen a bit, I think we can suffer a little bit of each just so we don't have to argue the "mandatory GPS implants in 2020" debate.

          •  If ID's are such a problem (0+ / 0-)

            then why do so many institutions required driver license identification? I, for example, was turned away from DMV due to my inability to produce identification, namely a driver's license or a birth certificate. Having free photographic identification cards available for all would actually help those in need.

            And don't forget that as long as we don't have a national ID system, racial problems are enhanced too. Employers may turn away Latinos or other minorities because they have no way of knowing whether these prospective employees are undocumented immigrants. And furthermore, such national cards would put Republican whining about voter fraud to rest and destroy their excuse for voter caging.

            After all, if countries like France can have a national ID system, I don't see why we can't.

            •  If France jumped off a bridge, would you? (0+ / 0-)

              I don't understand the fetish to be exactly like europeans, down to the last detail.

              Sure, this is a democratic site, so I get the welfare/healthcare thing. But IDs? What next? Will I read in some other thread "why can't we be more like the UK, with their ubiquitous surveillance cameras" ?

            •  If would only help "those in need" (0+ / 0-)

              if "those in need" were able to produce the existing ID documents in order to obtain the national ID card.

              And that requires three independent forms of identification.  If you got no existing license or birth certificate, echatwa, sorry, you're out of luck there too.  

          •  Math (0+ / 0-)

            "This is a decent value in local elections, but less so in state elections. And practically none in federal."

            Have you heard of multiplication, per chance?
            If this was truly a loophole available, you don't think people across the country would do it? And those numbers multiply.

            The only other solution for voting without an id is the Iraqi way - the ink finger; if you want to do that, I'd be ok with that solution.

            Only now how will you tell the people with the green card who don't have voting rights from anybody else? Or tourists, for that matter?

            Come on. We can do better thinking than this.

            •  Tourists? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              smintheus, Clio2

              Yep, those voting tourists sure are a real problem. I hear they come over just to buy crappy tshirts and fuck with our electoral process.

              WTF.

              Supposing this even happens at all, I can't imagine that it's counted for more than a handful out of the hundreds of millions of votes cast the last few decades. I think we can live with it. I think we can especially live with it, knowing that the alternative is some half-assed ID scheme.

              Anyone organized well enough to have people vote multiple times will undoubtedly be able to create multiple IDs for people to do that. Not that I worry about this much. If the conspiracy involves more than half a dozen people, the public will learn of it.

              •  There has to be some verification (0+ / 0-)

                The part that I have a problem with is you claiming we should just eliminate ALL checks as to who's voting, if I understood it correctly. At that point, there's no way to stop people to just getting back in the line after they're done.

                There is a lot higher bar to producing fake id's now than there would be to going to a different poll place (or bussing groups from one poll place to another).

                That being said, ink fingers are probably the best idea here - short term. You have to make sure it's one vote per person, otherwise the system becomes too easy to game.

                Long term, if we ever evolve a more responsive democracy (online elections, more frequent binding referendums), other ways (like a unique national ID) become more important.

    •  Sheep's clothing <> (0+ / 0-)

      "He not busy being born is busy dying." R. Zimmerman

      by RUKind on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:58:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  no (0+ / 0-)

      Why should the federal government not implement a uniform ID standard for interstate travel?  Isn't there a public interest in streamlining identification requirements?

      There is a public interest in eliminating identification requirements.

    •  There is no problem with Real ID only if (0+ / 0-)

      you assume that the federal government is some kind of inhuman machine that is and will remain 1) thoroughly  competent; 2) fully safeguarded from personal corruption, and 3) immune to the high-level corruption that regularly attends great power.

      But those assumptions are false, as the Founders well knew. That is why the Bill of Rights exists, among other protections -- to protect individuals from the all-too-human beings who actually carry out government functions.  
       

      1. Incomptence. Think of the many, many problems with the no-fly list, which has been found to be cluttered with infants, members of Congress, people cursed with "common" names like John Smith, and in one case, a man who took a snapshot out the plane window on a previous flight. This is just one nototious type of screw-up but believe me, screw-ups are endemic in the federal government and in any human system. If you have several ID systems and one screws you up, this is generally fixable. If the whole country depends on one central ID database and it screws you up, what would be your recourse? In addition, think of the many examples of sensitive personal databases, federal or otherwise, being someohow hacked, stolen or damaged. Usually the problem is limited to a relative few people. A single central database would expose everyone to this risk.
      1. Personal corruption. Databases can be "peeked" by the merely curious, by personal enemies (wife's  boyfriend?) who happen to work with the data, or by political enemies. With access obtained from dishonest political appointees, government employees or contractors, your data could potentially be falsified, disseminated or even used in blackmail. Protections against such activites exist, but the protections themselves may be fallible and in any case, the protective systems also are administered by human beings who may make use of their access for personal gain.  
      1. Political corruption. One automatically thinks of using federal data against the political opposition. As snother example, it was widely believed that J. Edgar Hoover kept his power in the FBI through Administration after Administration because he had the goods on practically every politician who entered Washington. Central federal databases facilitate cross-correlations that might put similar power in more hands. At a more catastrophic level, bear in mind that before rounding up the Jews in Germany, Hitler had a central database developed that logged every Jewish household and business in the nation. The German government knew exactly where Jewish individuals were and rounded up most of their targets with little dificulty, owing to this central database. I do not think that the U.S. is currently that corrupt, but should we not guard against the slightest future potential that something like this could happen here?

      What benefits will "efficiency" offer to balance risks such as these? It is a mistake to trust in some inherent "virtue" of automated systems, without recognizing that these systems are always imperfect and must be administered by imperfect, and sometimes corrupt, human beings.  

      •  My challenge to you (0+ / 0-)

        Explain to me how each of the above arguments would not apply to the following programs rightfully loved by liberals:

        -Social Security (shouldn't we just have state pensions)
        -Corps of Engineers (again, state public works)
        -Medicare and Medicaid (shit, shouldn't these poor states like Mississippi fund all their own health care)
        -Violence Against Women Act (applying the interstate commerce clause to wife beating!)
        -Census Bureau (look at all the info they collect from me under penalty of law!)

        Considering all of the cases where the fed government is massively intrusive, I hardly find the REAL ID concept noteworthy.  In fact, I generally use my passport and a credit card for travel anyway.

        How do each of the above programs fit into your concerns about potential corruption?  By the way, I love the reduction ad Hitlerum in point 3.  Looks like we've exhausted this thread!

  •  Libertarian Republicans are as extinct as (12+ / 0-)

    Liberal Republicans.  The party of Goldwater is as dead as the party of Rockefeller.  Half of the Republican voters are Bush cultists who let themselves be led around by Limbaugh and Hannity and the party propagandists on Fox.  The only reason McCain won the nomination is that for some reason no pure Bush cultist opposed him, except maybe Thompson who the cultists soon enough figured out wouldn't work.

    "Great men do not commit murder. Great nations do not start wars." William Jennings Bryan

    by Navy Vet Terp on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:08:41 PM PDT

  •  South Dakota (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nightprowlkitty, madgranny, Neon Mama

    South Dakota bans most abortions
    In signing law, governor says he expects court challenges

    Monday, March 6, 2006; Posted: 4:18 p.m. EST (21:18 GMT)
    (CNN) -- South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds signed a bill Monday that bans nearly all abortions in the state, legislation in direct conflict with the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in 1973
    >

    They passed this too, is it the isolation, the weather or the koolaid or the lobbyists?

    Think Tank. "A place where people are paid to think by the makers of tanks" Naomi Klein.

    by ohcanada on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:09:08 PM PDT

    •  Court challenges will fail (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      madgranny

      Roe is going down the tubes 5 to 4 absent a change in membership.  Kennedy made his position clear last term in Gonzales v. Carhart:

      It seems unexceptionable to conclude that some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained.

      So Kennedy Alito Thomas Roberts Scalia will overturn Roe, because all you women are too stupid to make your own decisions, and these fine upstanding men will protect you from your stupidity.

      "Great men do not commit murder. Great nations do not start wars." William Jennings Bryan

      by Navy Vet Terp on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:17:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah, but the people of South Dakota overruled it (8+ / 0-)
    •  And real ID will let them track you if you go (5+ / 0-)

      across state line to exercise your right to bodily integrity.  

      I ESPECIALLY dislike the idea of medical records online as a way to "save money" to pay for universal healthcare.  

      Any low level entry clerk, for the rest of your life, can expose info. now supposedly protected by HIPPA?    WOMEN, and those who love their women, need to scream a big loud NO to real ID.

      I've read too much about what they are already doing in South America to women "suspected" of abortion.  Okay?

      Beyond that ---- my home address very seriously  endangers my life if in a database.  As a victim of violent crime in hiding from gang threats, attempts already, and another dead witness --->  I'm very raw on this point.

      Three presidential candidates can't have their data safe.  The gang members I duck -- deal drugs too. Drug taking clerks can be "paid off."  One of them has several "prison guards" in his family.  Amazing what they are cleared to access.  

      It would of course be a criminal act, with real ID, to lay a false trail to protect myself, or to refuse to give data.  If you are on the fence about this subject --- vote to save my life and others like me.  The GOVERNMENT does not protect us.  

      De fund + de bunk = de EXIT--->>>>>

      by Neon Mama on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:37:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well... (0+ / 0-)

        The government should protect, and there should be laws to deal with dissemination of this information...but understand that you are already in a database, lots of them, that can be easily cross searched...your voting habits are out there too...who you gave money to, where you live, what car you drive, etc etc...and that has nothing to do with having one form of ID...

        It already is easy, this will not make it "easier than easy"...

        TexasDemocrat
        Giggity giggity giggity...Iraq's a Quagmire

        by TexasDemocrat on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:07:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Most Americans are unaware how easy it is for the (0+ / 0-)

          Government to get plenty of 'private' information about them - so even if real ID doesn't have a genuine impact on privacy, the idea is still very unpopular. One part of this that disturbs me is it seems to take power from the state and give it to the Federal Government. After seeing the idiocy of the recent immigration debate I am loathe to allow Americans from other states to have a say in California's ID Process.

          Love that "power of the purse!" It looks so nice up there on the mantle (and not the table) next to the "subpoena power."

          by Sacramento Dem on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:43:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  There's "easily" and "easily" (0+ / 0-)

          Why make it easier yet?

  •  Gov. Schweitzer was on NPR the other night (12+ / 0-)

    discussing this idiotic and dangerous bit of nonsense.  You can hear him here.

    Thank you, smitheus, for this terrific diary.

    1-20-09 The Darkness Ends "Where cruelty exists, law does not." ~ Alberto Mora

    by noweasels on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:10:24 PM PDT

  •  Question (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Detlef, echatwa, futurebird

    I do tend towards the libertarian side of things.

    But I'm asked to show a driver's license as ID all the time -- and we know how easy those are to forge, or even to read accurately, given how much they vary state-by-state.  Assuming that these request for ID are reasonable, what is wrong with having a uniform national card?

    And wouldn't this actually help cut down on identity theft by reducing the use of social security numbers?

    I'm not making my mind up on this yet, but these are certainly important questions.

    •  I think (0+ / 0-)

      I think a lot of people would agree with principle on a lot of the individual issues, background checks, uniformity in IDs, anti-counterfit measures, etc. Some of them could probably be passed individually if that's the way things worked. This law is just a mess, though.

      Barack Obama is the unstoppable force, Hillary Clinton the immovable object.
      Michigan voter. Not disenfranchised.

      by Decih on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:24:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Background checks (0+ / 0-)

        should not be lumped in with "uniformity" and "anti-counterfeit measures" in the same breath. They are a different animal and much more intrusive. And the "anti-counterfeit measures" are the only part of it with significant potential net benefit.

        •  I disagree. (0+ / 0-)

          I think that putting those three together in the same sentence was appropriate, considering that my point is that many people would agree in principle on a lot of individual issues. I did not discuss the actual merit of these issues.

          Barack Obama is the unstoppable force, Hillary Clinton the immovable object.
          Michigan voter. Not disenfranchised.

          by Decih on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:38:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  It really depends on who asks. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      native, smintheus, millwood, James Kresnik

      A government agent should only request a permit to drive a vehicle in connection with that activity.

      Private entities are not covered by the same restrictions.  A restaurant, for example, can exclude a customer, as long as it's not for one of the 'protected' reasons that apply because of the entity's participation in commerce.

      Homeland Security has obviously tried to pressure the airlines not to let people board if they don't show ID.  This should remind us that one of the main impetuses for privatization is the fact that private corporations can do many things that the government is prohibited for doing.

      How do you tell a predator from a protector? The predator will eat you sooner rather than later.

      by hannah on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:26:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Social Security numbers will be part of the data (5+ / 0-)

      bases. The DMV workers will be required to check SS numbers before giving you a license. Right there you can see how Real ID expands the opportunities for identity theft. (Besides, why should having a Social Security card be necessary to drive?)

      There are many dangers to this law, one of the chief being the creation of interconnected databases that the federal government can mine.

    •  This would be worthless... (7+ / 0-)

      For cutting down on identity theft.

      Look at the ways that identity theft occurs, and it's never "I gave my non-Real ID driver's license to the clerk at the airline counter".

      I like things non-uniform. You should be too... unless the democratic party is the "conformity" party and no one ever told me.

    •  Put this together with the Fusion Centers diary (5+ / 0-)

      It seems clear that our government wants its total information program. I remember a feature of the anti-nazi films when I was a kid in the 50's. The people trying to escape torture and imprisonment try to flee and encounter an agent of the bureaucracy on a train or in the street who says, "Papers please." You may think it's about those others, but once you surrender your ability to move freely without surveillance, you will never get it back. The Fusion centers and Real ID aren't about terrorism--they are about control of the public. The infrastructure is already in place to identify you from your shopping, to snoop on your email and web-surfing, and also your political leanings. They are rather close to being able, as the British have started proposing to do with school children, to identify you as a problem before you become one.

      And no it won't help with ID theft. It will enhance the abilities of hackers to violate your privacy by placing all of your data, and I do mean all, into one fat juicy target. Remember all of those leaks of data from the government in the last few years from laptops? Security is only as good as the minders. How do you think the government has done so far? Passport confidentiality anyone? Once up and running this tempting information trove will draw money from those who want to subvert it. And that money can buy access by subverting employees. All it takes is one corrupt person to give a password--the rest can be spoofed (the computer DNS, id, etc.). By concentrating all of the information we are also focusing hackers efforts--right now the info is all over the place and takes a lot of work for a much smaller payoff.

      And then there is the possibility of government abuse. We have had firewalls for years between different agencies that were and are not allowed to combine information. If these firewalls are gone, do you trust the government to honorably safeguard your privacy and always act constitutionally? After the last seven years do you really believe that? In my mind, that is like handing a drunk guy the keys to your car and hoping he won't crash it.

    •  In normal times I would agree. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      James Kresnik

      Heck, here in Germany we have a national identification card since forever.  Normally I only need to show it during elections.

      And I had to show it years ago when I wanted to rent a car. To my embarrassment it was no longer valid although I still got the car. :)
      (You have to renew it in Germany after 10 years.)
      Just included it to show that having an ID card doesn´t mean that it is actually needed that much.

      However with the current US administration, I´d be reluctant too. They do seem to have a tendency to grab as much data as they can. Without strong privacy laws (and agencies ready to enforce them) it could develop into a real data-mining project.

    •  "What's wrong with it?" (0+ / 0-)

      It think the correct question is, "What's right with it?"

      Answer: not much.  

  •  Wait, I don't see R0n P4v1 on there???? (3+ / 0-)

    Surely teh Paul doesn't like it?

  •  Progressives are missing the boat... (6+ / 0-)

    not just on Real ID, but on a broad range of issues, by not taking advantage of the 10th Amendment and favoring not States' Rights (with its Jim Crow connotations) but States' Responsibilities.  The Founders' view of the States as a balance against abuse of power by the Federal Government was correct.  The diminution of the states has resulted in a giant winner-take-all process that puts the people at a disadvantage in relation to the corporations and their lobbyists.  When the arena of action is at the state level, we may not win everywhere but we won't lose everywhere either.  There will, at the very least, be islands of sanity hwere the grssroots/netroots can fight corporate power on a more level playing field.

    I worry about people who agree with me. I know why I'm this way but I have to wonder what's wrong with them.

    by George Gould on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:16:51 PM PDT

  •  States... (2+ / 0-)

    States are against them, I would bet, not because of any sense of civil liberties, but because entire state departments will be eliminated, and a ton of fees/renewal fees along with it...

    Pretty easy to find a case for interstate commerce, so feds do have the power, I believe, particularly if it were for airport screening.

    I think rather than being forced to have one, they could do it another way...have a special line at the airport for those that have Federal ID's, which could double as a driver's license with the right "code" added to it.  Essentially, you get a driver's license through the state, and get an optional Federal ID, with a magnetic code on it that allows it to double as a state ID/driver's license.

    If it meant a shorter screening line, I'd be all for it.

    TexasDemocrat
    Giggity giggity giggity...Iraq's a Quagmire

    by TexasDemocrat on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:18:27 PM PDT

    •  Benjamin Franklin warned us... (6+ / 0-)

      about trading liberty for security.  But tading liberty for convenience?

      I worry about people who agree with me. I know why I'm this way but I have to wonder what's wrong with them.

      by George Gould on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:25:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well... (1+ / 0-)

        There isn't any liberty relating to carrying identification.  Check state laws.  That battle is already lost.

        Also, would it make you feel more warm and fuzzy if we called it a passport?

        TexasDemocrat
        Giggity giggity giggity...Iraq's a Quagmire

        by TexasDemocrat on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:28:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, it wouldn't but it would... (5+ / 0-)

          make me feel more "warm and fuzzy," as you call it, to have progressives advocate the states acting as bulwarks against the abuse of power by the Federal Government, instead of bending over and saying "Thank you, sir. May I have another?".

          I worry about people who agree with me. I know why I'm this way but I have to wonder what's wrong with them.

          by George Gould on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:35:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  How is it an abuse? (0+ / 0-)

            Constitution allows interstate commerce to be regulated by the federal government.  Airports are clearly related to interstate commerce.

            TexasDemocrat
            Giggity giggity giggity...Iraq's a Quagmire

            by TexasDemocrat on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:37:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  automobiles are not clearly related (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              esquimaux, Nightprowlkitty, Neon Mama

              to interstate commerce.

              •  Hmm... (0+ / 0-)

                Then why do we all have drinking ages over the age of 21?  Why are car emission standards set by the feds?

                There are all sorts of federal agencies dealing with transportation, including highways and cars.

                Sorry, try again.

                TexasDemocrat
                Giggity giggity giggity...Iraq's a Quagmire

                by TexasDemocrat on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:58:36 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  emissions are an environmental issue (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  James Kresnik

                  National environmental standards are set at the national level. Looks to me like you're blowing smoke here, reaching for anything that would seem to justify national regulation of state drivers' licenses.

                  Btw, drinking ages are set by state law.

                  •  Power (0+ / 0-)

                    We're talking about whether it would be an abuse of federal power here.  I'm saying it is not an abuse.  You are saying it is.  I believe Congress and the President, if it decided to, has the power to do this based on the Commerce Clause.

                    This is not to say it would be an effective policy; that, I think, goes both ways.  There is some efficiency in an airport screener and a law enforcement official knowing what to expect in terms of a national ID, similar to a passport.  But there are certainly questionable problems with it as well, in that if you only have one system, it is easier to counterfeit, similar to the ease with which Windows viruses are easier to design (one design, you can destroy millions since they are all the same OS/structure/defects)...

                    But the feds have the power to do it, no doubt in my mind.

                    TexasDemocrat
                    Giggity giggity giggity...Iraq's a Quagmire

                    by TexasDemocrat on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:15:19 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I'm not so gung-ho on this idea of increasing (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      esquimaux
                      federal power for the sake of something as trivial as convenience for the authorities. Those drinking age laws you're using as an example, were implemented under federal threat. These laws have done only slightly less damage to the 4th amendment than the War on Some Drugs. If those laws we're repealed, the world would be a better place, even with the drunks.

                      Regarding the Rule of Law, I can be considered a single issue voter.

                      by James Kresnik on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:28:40 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Not Commerce Clause... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  James Kresnik, RussRocks

                  ...Spending Clause.  South Dakota v. Dole made 18-year-olds eligible for the draft, but not to get a beer on the way back from registering.

                  9-11 changed everything? Well, Katrina changed it back.

                  by varro on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:10:18 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Well... (0+ / 0-)

                    It is true that alcohol is one of those odd things that is affected by the wording of the 21st Amendment, giving states the right to restrict the importation of alcohol, which is why the Tax and Spending clause was at issue.  It is not because "driving" does not affect interstate commerce.

                    TexasDemocrat
                    Giggity giggity giggity...Iraq's a Quagmire

                    by TexasDemocrat on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:28:20 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  It is true: (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              native, smintheus, Nightprowlkitty

              Congress does have the power to regulate interstate commerce under the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8).

              Commerce is defined as:

              an interchange of goods or commodities, esp. on a large scale between different countries (foreign commerce) or between different parts of the same country (domestic commerce); trade; business.

              Since the passage of the 13th Amendment, it has been illegal to treat people as goods or commodities.

              Article 1, Section 8, grants the Congress no right to regulate the issuance of drivers' licenses.

              Therefore, the 10th Amendment applies:

              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.

              Therefore, it is an abuse of power by the Federal Government.

              I worry about people who agree with me. I know why I'm this way but I have to wonder what's wrong with them.

              by George Gould on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:54:16 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well... (0+ / 0-)

                There goes your National Labor Relations Board, then. Try again.

                TexasDemocrat
                Giggity giggity giggity...Iraq's a Quagmire

                by TexasDemocrat on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:01:52 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The NLRB relates to labor as a component... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  smintheus, James Kresnik

                  of commerce.  Travel of individuals does not.  You try again.

                  I worry about people who agree with me. I know why I'm this way but I have to wonder what's wrong with them.

                  by George Gould on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:06:03 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  So... (0+ / 0-)

                    So you think travel is not a component of commerce?  My clients would quite disagree.  As would my wife, who travels about two weeks out of every two months for her job.

                    TexasDemocrat
                    Giggity giggity giggity...Iraq's a Quagmire

                    by TexasDemocrat on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:10:00 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  My clients would probably agree with yours... (0+ / 0-)

                      but it is the labor at the other end that is the component of commerce.  The travel is merely a convenience for the sake of shortsighted clients who don't realize that more often than not, given the state of modern technology and tele-communications, the function could have been performed without the travel.

                      I worry about people who agree with me. I know why I'm this way but I have to wonder what's wrong with them.

                      by George Gould on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:13:37 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Back to power issue... (0+ / 0-)

                        Just so I have this straight, you do not think interstate travel is a component of interstate commerce...so NLRB is ok, but regulating air travel is not.

                        NTSB, NHTSA...these are longstanding agencies...there would be a lot of chaos in your world.

                        I'm a federalist, always will be.  "State's rights", to me, is mostly a lot of hooey to justify opposing some federal action that the good citizens of NY want to impose on the good citizens of Texas, and vice versa.

                        TexasDemocrat
                        Giggity giggity giggity...Iraq's a Quagmire

                        by TexasDemocrat on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:19:45 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  If that's your view... (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Neon Mama, James Kresnik

                          then you are not a federalist, you are a nationalist who views the states as mere administrative adjuncts of the Federal Government.  A federalist views the states as a counterbalance to the Federal Government and vice versa - an integral part of the systems of checks and balances to prevent the consolidation of power.

                          I worry about people who agree with me. I know why I'm this way but I have to wonder what's wrong with them.

                          by George Gould on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:27:08 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Not true... (0+ / 0-)

                            I do believe that there is a broad federal power, but it is not absolute.  I believe there are some activities, specifically related to intrastate commerce/behavior (family issues, etc.) that are largely of the state domain, but I do think they are much smaller in number.  I think we've become a nation, particularly economically, not a collection of states, and our laws should reflect that more than they do.

                            TexasDemocrat
                            Giggity giggity giggity...Iraq's a Quagmire

                            by TexasDemocrat on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:31:51 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I guess that's something then that... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            James Kresnik

                            we'll have to disagree on.  I vastly prefer robust state power to check the power of the Federal Government.  If the Federal Government is the sole arbiter of the limits of its power, there is no limit to the mischeif it can cause.

                            As to the desirablity of our being a nation as opposed to a collection of states, I also have to disagree.  The corporatists would love to have us be one homogenized mass.  It makes life so much easier for them - only one legislature to bribe, one executive to own, and and a buraucracy that pretty much lets them write the rules and regulations.

                            I worry about people who agree with me. I know why I'm this way but I have to wonder what's wrong with them.

                            by George Gould on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:44:56 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  True... (0+ / 0-)

                            It is easier to bribe one legislature, but they've figured that out already...they also only bribe the legislatures that affect them...but there is some desire for all of us to have consistency...that's why Uniform Commercial Codes exist nearly everywhere, as do other uniform state laws...when states go away from the UCC, it causes many problems...

                            And I do not see the need to eliminate state governments, I just believe their focus should be on issues with little effect on other states...transit is not one of these, nor are environmental issues, nor are voting rights/race relations, etc etc.

                            Largely our argument is one of semantics, tho...

                            TexasDemocrat
                            Giggity giggity giggity...Iraq's a Quagmire

                            by TexasDemocrat on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:51:48 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Agreed... and good luck to you... (0+ / 0-)

                            I enjoyed the discussion.

                            I worry about people who agree with me. I know why I'm this way but I have to wonder what's wrong with them.

                            by George Gould on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:10:52 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  State... (0+ / 0-)

                            I guess I would be more for state power if I didn't live in such a backward ass state...lol...

                            TexasDemocrat
                            Giggity giggity giggity...Iraq's a Quagmire

                            by TexasDemocrat on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:14:20 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  LOL... I understand (0+ / 0-)

                            I lived in Texas (San Antonio) for 4 years in the early 80s and now I live in the Tampa, Florida area, home of CENTCOM and SOCOM, where worship of the military-industrial complex is the state religion.

                            I worry about people who agree with me. I know why I'm this way but I have to wonder what's wrong with them.

                            by George Gould on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:22:18 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Florida (0+ / 0-)

                            Florida: Where state's rights matter unless Bush is running for national office.

                            You feel my pain.

                            TexasDemocrat
                            Giggity giggity giggity...Iraq's a Quagmire

                            by TexasDemocrat on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:51:58 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  It is quite possible that a Supreme Court (0+ / 0-)

                      in the future might find that a federal ID is constitutional under the commerce clause, as practically everything is related to interstate commerce these days.  

                      That is the problem. That is why we have to consider whether it is a good idea. Just because something is or might be Constitutional under the commerce clause does not make it the right thing to do, or in line with the general principles at the heart of this nation.  

        •  Actualy, there is a battle to be won or lost (0+ / 0-)

          Just not in TexaSS.  

      •  We are going to hell in a handbasket of (0+ / 0-)

        convenience ..that's ultimately what the game plan is, from what I can determine...beg to be tracked by all of our cell phones so we can feel "safe" in such a dangerous world, belong to a "priviledged rescue plan" so when the next firestorm comes through , we'll be whisked away with nary a worry, our chump neighbors be damned ( and some of those Blackwater guys are SO handsome ), and breeze right on through to our gated communities , whose gates open when we look at them because they retina scan, etc....

        Peekgate should tell us that is NOT where we want to go...hell, control central might be in tax-free Dubai, who could know ?

    •  States are against it for many reasons (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nightprowlkitty, Neon Mama, gdwtch52

      Though I don't think the loss of fees is an issue since the states continue to issue the drivers licenses. But it is a massive unfunded mandate, as well as unworkable (it requires, among other things, that DMV workers ascertain the validity of foreign passports for non-citizen drivers).

      And, yes, there are plenty of states that care about the balance of powers between state and federal government, as well as about civil liberties. How many people are actually eager for a national ID? As opposed to those who are quite strongly against one? There's your wedge issue.

    •  States (0+ / 0-)

      would still administer the program under standards set by the federal government. They would be out of pocket, however, because there would not any additional funds from the federal government to enable them to meet those standards.

      If you "follow the money," the parties concerned are a wide variety of software and hardware companies that are currently salivating over potential contracts for their products, which would be necessary to make the ID cards "smart" and "tamper-proof."  The "uniformity" requirement will mean huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge profits to some lucky few of these.  

  •  Dividing Republicans (5+ / 0-)

    I know of several Republicans who have deep misgivings about the attack on civil liberties that has occurred during this Administration.  Some have actually left the party over this issue.  Democrats would be stupid not to use it during this election.

    -5.13,-5.64; When pygmies cast such long shadows, it must be very late in the day. -Gian-Carlo Rota

    by gizmo59 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:18:33 PM PDT

  •  GOP talk radio essential for selling real ID (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shirah, Neon Mama, Clio2, gdwtch52

    the immigration issue was blown up on talk radio long before it made it to lou dobbs and TV as part of the effort to froth p the base for real ID.  same with roves attempts to push voter fraud to cover for real GOP election fraud  that was also tied to the need for real ID- and that was also tied to idiotic suggestions that could only be sold on the talk radio monopoly, that illegal immigrants were helping steal elections. they've tied the selling of real ID into all sorts of 'win-win' situations for them, although pushing the voter fraud fraud was a big part of attorney-gate.

    the uncontested repetition of talk radio has been essential to selling this kind of crap in America and until we get some new Fairness Doctrine real democracy and real bipartisanship are about impossible.

    •  forget the crossout wtf? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gdwtch52
    •  Ah. So that's what happened (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gdwtch52

      to one of the commenters above. I was wondering. I guess it's hard to avoid talk radio in Texas.

      Folly is fractal: the closer you look at it, the more of it there is.

      by Canadian Reader on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:37:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  talk radio model so effective for right it is (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Clio2

        being exported--- watch for it in Canada!
        in southern CO one lunchtime I got limbaugh on three out of five sstations on my car radio----  probably similar in Texas

        •  Maybe in Alberta. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          certainot

          That's our wannabe Texas. Cattle, oil -- and a lot of oil industry Americans. Can't see the format going over too well anywhere else, though.

          Also, promoting hatred against an identifiable group is an actual criminal offense up here. It's not so much that a talk radio host would find himself behind bars if he started spewing the poisonous stuff you let them get away with down there. He might... but what he'd really run into head-on, and likely lose his job over, is the Canadian culture that solidly believes there are some things you can't let people say.

          Folly is fractal: the closer you look at it, the more of it there is.

          by Canadian Reader on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:10:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  if they had to take some calls as opposed (0+ / 0-)

            to having them screened most of these right wingers wouldn't last long either. they don't blather from a soapbox in the park and you can't call them on their lies.   their soapboxes reach multiple states and their screeners are real pros- progressives have to put on foreign accents, lisps,  sound really batty, etc. to get past the screener and try to sneak a quick one-liner through before getting cut off.  not to mention waiting hours while the worshippers tell them what great patriots they are.  that's if they take calls at all.   yet their monopoly allows them to blast their lies and propaganda to tens of millions.

  •  Real ID is one of the bigger differences Hillary (4+ / 0-)

    and Barack have, policywise (she supports it, he doesn't) Link

  •  Libertarian-leaners should think long and hard... (5+ / 0-)

    ...about voting for Obama.

    Obama has a strong record on civil liberties.  Bush seems to think we should get to keep our guns and nothing else; McCain is more of the same.

    Can Republicans claim to be for small government or states rights' with a straight face?  Bush has expanded the federal gov't and pushed unfunded mandates down states' throats; McCain is more of the same.

    Republicans have lost their isolationist argument as well.  Even the US's normal meddling should be better received by libertarians than Iraq and more pre-emptive wars.

    [talking points offered free of charge]

  •  HSPD-12 Government ID shows what they want (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Clio2, James Kresnik, Emalene

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    Since that diary was written, the government admitted in court that their program, supposedly aimed at producing reliable ID, indeed involves delving into medical, financial, and other private records of individuals.

    For more, see http://hspd12jpl.org

  •  According to Justice Kennedy's (6+ / 0-)

    definition of the rule of law, there's no justification for issuing or demanding a permit to prove one's identity.  

    I suggest that the rule of law has three parts. The first is that the law is binding on the government and all of its officials. This may seem a rather self-evident matter, but it’s a proposition that most government officials in most countries do not fully understand. If an administrative agency and an administrator in that agency is charged with giving you a permit, the permit is not given to you as a matter of grace; it’s given to you because you are entitled to it and because it is his or her duty to give it to you.

    The agents of government are limited in what they can do to carry out the responsibilities assigned to them.  There's no evidence that documentary identification promotes any socially beneficial purpose.  

    How do you tell a predator from a protector? The predator will eat you sooner rather than later.

    by hannah on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:20:52 PM PDT

  •  It would be cheaper and far more effective (9+ / 0-)

    if we just simply kept a 24-hour watch on all of Congress, all Executive top figures (President, VP, cabinet, department heads etc), and Supreme Court members.

    For just a fraction of the cost of Real ID, we could follow each of the above, perhaps with their own individual live broadcast web station.

    Corruption, incompetence, complicity, and duplicity--all, all would be gone practically overnight.

    C'mon folks, let's open some Overton Windows around this matter. Whaddya say?

    Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

    by Jim P on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:24:18 PM PDT

  •  There was no excuse (4+ / 0-)

    for "not knowing" what Real ID was.

    Real ID was enacted without debate, without hearings, without input from Democrats.

    How tsunami relief became "must-pass" with Real ID buried in it is a mystery to me. Everyone knew what Real ID meant, it had been widely discussed in the civil liberties communities on both left and right for years before it got enacted.  The bill could have ben shot down and a new tsunami relief bill drafted.  But the truth is, that as with the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act etc etc etc our "representatives" in both parties have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they couldn't give a shit about the constitutional rights and freedoms of the people and have an undying, unswerving and total commitment to fast-tracking America into a Police State.

    The time to resist by whatever means necessary is approaching at a gallop.

  •  The Real ID Act sounds fine to me. (7+ / 0-)

    I mean, who didn't read "1984" and think "I wish I lived in a world like that."

    Gore/Obama '08...or Gore/Edwards...or Edwards/Obama...or Obama/Edwards...or, aw hell, just put one of them in the White House already!

    by Kyle the Mainer on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:30:45 PM PDT

    •  Winston did get himself a higher paying job (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kyle the Mainer, Clio2

      and plenty of cheap gin, after all.

    •  Hate to tell you... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shirah, gdwtch52

      But we already do.  Those videoscreens?  Brought to you by the internet.  Terrorism is the unending war.  And we already are required to carry with us our identification.

      Another identification card really is not the point.  They can track us as efficiently as they want to already...the thing that limits them is the sheer volume of data that they can collect necessitating priorities of the data analysis.

      TexasDemocrat
      Giggity giggity giggity...Iraq's a Quagmire

      by TexasDemocrat on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:47:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Still no reason to go down quietly... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Kyle the Mainer, Neon Mama

        "I will not go quietly..."

        If we want peace, why do we give weapons and call it "aid"?

        by gdwtch52 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:50:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  So the answer to authoritarian abuse (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Kyle the Mainer, Clio2
        is more authoritarian abuse. Yeah, got it.

        Regarding the Rule of Law, I can be considered a single issue voter.

        by James Kresnik on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:34:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  "As efficiently as they want" (0+ / 0-)

        Maybe not that efficiently.  

        The thing is, there are a number of systems to keep track of people, which certainly contain more than we need them to or would like them to in some cases, and they are riddled with mistakes, don't interface all that well, and really really cannot track all of the people all of the time.  

        These systems also are administered by actual all-too-human beings who -- as in all large organizations -- include their share of the lazy, the greedy, the creatures of internal politics, and the too-dumb-to-pour-piss-out-of-a boot. Reality is a long way from the grandiose Panopticon w** dream that seems to have infected Admiral Poindexter and others in the "security" community.  

        Things sound pretty bad in Texas. But there is no need to throw up our hands and surrender on this issue. Don't give up the ship!

  •  You mean Congressional Democrats (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Neon Mama, James Kresnik

    like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton? Who've had their passports breached by "contractors" (CIA)?

    The same Congress that hasn't sent a repeal of the "Patriot" act to the President?

    The same Congress that employs Blackwater?

    WHAT A SHOCK!!!!

  •  Real ID won't protect us from (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jkb246, Neon Mama, Purple Priestess

    the real enemy...space aliens, who seek to replace our selves and take over our bodies.

    What good would Real ID have done aginst those giant seed pods?

  •  Thank you for the diary… (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    smintheus, Purple Priestess

    …and the effort you expended to produce it.

    One small correction: the FIPS* code for the state of Hawai'i is HI, not HA. HA is the FIPS county code for the nation we know as Haiti.

    *FIPS: Federal Information Processing Standard

  •  fear of bad info (7+ / 0-)

    When I first moved to this state, I almost couldn't get a driver's license: they told me I was "revoked in New York."
    Frantic, I looked over the counter at the green-bar printout from their antiquated tractor-feed printer, and saw my name -- right down to the middle initial -- and a string of addresses in Yonkers. I've never lived in New York State, or been to Yonkers...
    For a moment, I thought my identity had been stolen, and then I took a closer look... took a deep breath... and said calmly, "That's not me, Ma'am: that guy was born ten years to the day before me.
    She took another look at the paper, compared it to my former license, and said, "Yeah, so he was." I got my license.

    Less than a year later, I went to buy a firearm, and the transaction was held overnight. Same guy? I don't know: my name is pretty darned common. Since then, about half my gun purchases have been held. The owner of my local gun shop says that my background check calls are transferred to a real ATF agent... if one is available, the sale is approved; if not, it is delayed.

    Then, we flew to San Francisco. At the Philly airport, curbside check-in would not work for us. We went to the counter, and the airline employee took my ID and made a brief phone call; when she hung up, she printed our tickets. I asked her what that was about, and she said simply, "Do Not Fly." On the return trip, I was advised to carry my passport even for domestic travel.

    If neither my state nor two branches of the federal government can figure out that I am not the bad driver/presumed criminal from New York -- even, in the case of the firearms transactions, when provided with my Social Security number -- how can I trust them to put my name through some TIA/Real ID databases and not shoot me in the back of the head... let alone give me a driver's license?

    I'm not a Democrat, I'm a liberal. Democrats go to meetings.

    by willie horton on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:38:47 PM PDT

  •  I doubt there's ever been an issue in Arizona (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    smintheus, Neon Mama, James Kresnik

    that young hip progressive Kyrsten Sinema and cranky old wingnut Karen Johnson have agreed on, as the quote in the story suggests. The thing's gotta be in trouble.

    "One cannot be pessimistic about the West. This is the native land of hope." Wallace Stegner

    by Mother Mags on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:44:10 PM PDT

  •  a little off topic (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    smintheus, Neon Mama

    but the Real ID Act was also a reprehensible piece of immigration "reform."

  •  My standard reminder: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jkb246, Neon Mama, Clio2

    To be against national ID is a long-held traditional conservative position.  (REAL conservatives, that is, not the panty-wastes currently pretending to be conservative.)

    I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.

    by beemerr90s on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:45:36 PM PDT

  •  If I had to guess... (4+ / 0-)

    They've not exploited it as a wedge issue because they're much more interested in actually having Real ID.

    Surely, you can at least admit that there are elements of the Democratic party that have their own totalitarian bent.

    Not that anyone should be a single issue voter, but if a pro-realid democrat challenges a republican who is against it, are any of you even going to hesitate to vote for the democrat?

    •  Not only that (0+ / 0-)

      They may see campaign contributions from the host of software and hardware providers who hope for a piece of the pie. A machine-readable, uniform Real ID card represents is a true potential bonanza for at least a lucky few of them. Some have already made mega-bucks off the latest generation of federal employee IDs.  

  •  CA actually introduced this bill? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jkb246, shirah, Neon Mama, shigeru

    Oh yeah, wait - I forgot we have Arnuld as governor.  But my state reps are going to be hearing from me.  They should be pushing Arnuld to tell the feds to stuff it where the sun don't shine, just like Governor Schweitzer did.  I can't fucking believe the CA legislature has introduced this.  It damn will better get stuck in committee and never see the light of day.  Kudos to the states that have told the feds to go jump in a lake.

    Practice random acts of kindness.

    by Sally in SF on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:54:03 PM PDT

  •  I heard they're just gonna tattoo our arms... (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jkb246, esquimaux, Neon Mama, Clio2, gdwtch52

        Yes the KBR tattooing and RFID anal chip insertions will soon be ready to go and you'll only have to pay them $199.00 for the entire package 10% for those 65 or older..!

        Think of how convenient it will be..!

       

       

    "Ours is not a system based upon trust, but one of suspicion.." Thomas Jefferson

    by TJ Colatrella on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:55:15 PM PDT

  •  This is insightful and offers a possible issue (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    smintheus, shirah, Neon Mama, Clio2

    that could be used on many fronts.

    After all the consevatives were the ones warning about government intrusion not so many years ago. There is still a great deal of healthy suspicion about the government in most conservative areas.

    "The fact which the politician faces is merely that there is less honor among thieves than was supposed, and not the fact that they are thieves." Thoreau

    by shigeru on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:57:14 PM PDT

  •  Isn't South Dekota where the (0+ / 0-)

    big credit card companies do their business?

    We can have the Constitution or we can have Bush but, we can't have both.

    by Friend of the court on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:59:00 PM PDT

  •  Let's see who wins... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Purple Priestess

    ...when a DHS flunky meets a real Port Police officer with a real badge, gun and handcuffs when DHS flunky refuses to let a passenger with valid ID past security.

    Of course, Obama (or Clinton for that matter) will clean house when they take over, and get rid of Skeletor and similar neocons at DHS...

    9-11 changed everything? Well, Katrina changed it back.

    by varro on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:03:44 PM PDT

  •  I'll gladly wait in line and stay out of Federal (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Neon Mama

    buildings. Nooooooo problem.

    I will not accept Real ID. Ever.

  •  Fusion Centers, the new TIA (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Neon Mama, James Kresnik, marketgeek

    Recommended, even: http://www.dailykos.com/...

    Here's to the death of Real ID, if we can accomplish it!

  •  I was just picking out an mcjoan audio clip (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mcjoan, Neon Mama, Clio2, gdwtch52

    from my interview with her last thursday, and what stood out was the RealID discussion. This should allow us to present Republicans as authoritarians to the Mountain West.  FISA, Joan told me, never really entered into the consciousness, but having to go down to the DMV to get a license that may have some kind of RFID tracking chip is VERY concrete.

    Or, at least, that's what mcjoan told me, with some, errm personal embellishment.

    Come see Greg Mitchell on Thursday at Virtually Speaking

    by JayAckroyd on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:08:05 PM PDT

  •  Real ID legislative history (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shirah, Clio2

    February 2005: Passed the house, 261-161 (42 Dems and 219 Reps for, 152 Dems/8 Reps/Bernie against)

    February 2005: Bill lays dormant in the Senate Judiciary committee

    March 2005: Real ID attached to HR1268

    May 2005: HR1268 passes 368-58 in the House (54 Dems, Bernie, Ron Paul, Coble, and Duncan voting nay)

    May 2005: HR1268 passes 100-0 in the Senate

    And that's the legislative process that explains how bad bills become law, and how Ron Kind's 2006 opponent ran ads about him voting to fund unpopular things.

    "Our country right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right" - Carl Schurz

    by RBH on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:10:35 PM PDT

  •  right fucking on, sminth. (4+ / 0-)

    this should be fp'd three times a week till November, or until Allen's bill is passed, vetoed and overridden, whichever comes first.

    "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed." -Nancy Pelosi, 6/29/07.

    by nailbender on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:13:20 PM PDT

  •  And the Dems will do nothing (0+ / 0-)

    Can we just hook up GPS to our coats and start our lives under the regime of King Jeb Bush III.

    •  Do you carry a GPS enabled cell phone? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shirah, shigeru
      http://www.travelbygps.com/...
      http://www.wired.com/...

      Phones are required to have GPRS, functionally equivelent to GPS.

      http://news.zdnet.com/...

      Phones can also be set up as bugging devices, picking up sound when the user turns them off.

      The plutocrats have got you paying for your own bugging and tracking device. Sleep tight.

      Regarding the Rule of Law, I can be considered a single issue voter.

      by James Kresnik on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 05:04:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hit the post button too soon. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        shirah, shigeru
        GPS is not GPRS. Sorry.

        Regarding the Rule of Law, I can be considered a single issue voter.

        by James Kresnik on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 05:06:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Remove the tin foil hat for just a moment… (0+ / 0-)

        …so that you can clearly hear my counter: GPRS—or, the General Packet Radio Service—is a low end, introductory data data communications technology used on GSM networks, such as those deployed in the US by at&t, SunCom, T-Mobile and others.

        Already supplanted widely by EDGE and follow-on third generations data technologies, GPRS has nothing at all to do with GPS location technology.

        Sure, they can be set up as bugging devices by some nefarious third-party. And, the Mossad can blow your damn head off with one embedded with high explosives. One such outcome is about as likely as the other. Now, slip your tin foil hat back on.

        •  Did you read the links I provided? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Clio2
          Did you read my correction follow up? Did you read my post to note that I specified GPS enabled phones? I would guess no to all of the above.

          Moreover, EDGE employs EGPRS,
          it is functionally equivalent to GPRS technology.

          Nefarious third parties like the FBI have attempted to use cellular and digital phones as tracking and bugging devices for some time. You would know this if your read the links in my post.

          Finally, 'tinfoil' slams are childish and asinine arguments from personal incredulity, and have no place in any serious discussion. I would like you to come back and have a mature discussion when you've done some actual research. Until then, kindly shove your incredulous ignorance where the sun doesn't shine. Good day sir.

          Regarding the Rule of Law, I can be considered a single issue voter.

          by James Kresnik on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:09:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  DO nothing? (0+ / 0-)

      They've already done that. eachand everyone that voted to strip us of our Citizneship come this May

      "My case is alter'd, I must work for my living." Moll Cut-Purse, The Roaring Girl - 1612, England's First Actress

      by theRoaringGirl on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:22:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It scares the hell outta me (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Clio2, Purple Priestess, gdwtch52

    I don't see why ANY Democrat would be for this. It's just wrong. Wrong in so many ways...this is a total invasion of privacy.

  •  My cynical opinion says this... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Neon Mama, Purple Priestess

    Despite the opposition at the state level - if we start bringing this issue up in the general election it just makes the Dems look weak on terrorism and national security.  The GOP will twist the issue and create their own "truth" (e.g. whatever the talking points of the day are).

    I still think fear is a major motivator for voters, and the GOP is like Jason on Friday the 13th - they know how to instill fear.

    We could actually learn a few lessons from the GOP in that area.  Our issue is the economy, and we have plenty of real fears to call upon in campaigning on that issue.

    Picture a campaign focusing on banks foreclosing on homes, families unable to fill up their cars because of $4 a gallon gas, roads and infrastructure crumbling, and job losses - and talking about how those fear could become even starker realities under a McCain administration, and how those fears became reality for so many under the Bush administration and their Wall Street-friendly policies.

    We always say that in voting for the GOP people ignore their economic self-interest, but we rarely play that card effectively in our messaging.  The time is now to correct that flaw.

    •  Fine (4+ / 0-)

      How about appealing to fears of a police state rather than surrendering the blessings of liberty forever, but rather preserving them for ourselves and our posterity?    You may be okay with these kinds of repression at the moment largely being used against people with Arabic/Muslim names, but I refer you to the words of Pastor Niemoller as to where  that outlook takes you.

    •  sure, because at the state level... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      James Kresnik

      what do politicians know about what voters want? Better to turn to politicians on Capitol Hill to get the pulse of the electorate.

    •  I think it's being positioned (0+ / 0-)

      in the West at least, as a way to separate the "illegal Mexicans" from the "us."  

      I think Westerners in general would not be pleased if they learned more about how hard it may be for many of us to get the Real ID due to the rules for documentation. Do you have the three separate forms of positive ID required to qualify?  (Let's see -- original copy of birth certificate, check. Oh, wait a minute, this is a photocopy. I've never had an original birth certificate. Uh,  existing driver's license, check. Uh ---)

      INTERIOR--GOVERNMENT OFFICE. Prevailing shades of gray. A burly TEXAN in a big hat stoops slightly to look into the eyes of a CLERK behind a GRILLLED WINDOW.

                                    TEXAN

      My family fought in both World Wars -- and at the Alamo. What do you mean I don't qualify for an ID card?  

                                    CLERK
                       (eyes ducking down to the left)

      Sir, I don't make the rules.  

  •  NO! I will not show you my papers!! (3+ / 0-)

    Thank G&G that WA doesn't want to play!  Tell the gestopo to go sque themselves!

    If we want peace, why do we give weapons and call it "aid"?

    by gdwtch52 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:20:50 PM PDT

  •  "slightly daft" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gdwtch52

    You're far too kind. ;)

    ...But it all amounts to nothing if together we don't stand...

    by LeftOverAmerica on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:29:49 PM PDT

    •  Will someone who knows please tell me (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gdwtch52

      whether a U.S. passport would be an acceptable substitute for Real ID in any or all circumstances? I do not have a driver's license, am I required to get one to enter a federal building, for example?
      I'd especially appreciate any authority (you know, where I could go look it up for myself) for whatever opinions you advance. Thanks for your help.

      I know what I know, and I know some of what I don't know. It's what I don't know that I don't know that keeps getting me into trouble.

      by DaNang65 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:37:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  yeah, I thought so too (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LeftOverAmerica

      There is however a wider audience I'm also aiming this piece towards, who will both appreciate the understatement and maybe see some value in going somewhat easy on him.

      Anyway, I'm not sure I have the words to describe Sensenbrenner adequately.

  •  I've read through many of the provided links, but (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Neon Mama, Purple Priestess, gdwtch52

    I can't seem to find where the status of all the states are to the 'request' of Real ID.  I'm looking specifically for Iowa.

    Why should the States pay for a Federal program??  And one that is so intrusive??

    •  why would they pay? (4+ / 0-)

      Cowardice? Foolishness? Obviously DHS has threatened reprisals of various kinds, against air passengers, for example. DHS has also threatened to cut funding from non-compliant states.

      I'm pretty sure that Iowa has requested an extension, and promised to comply eventually.

      •  IMAO DHS should be disbanded (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        esquimaux, Clio2, James Kresnik

        However, since it and its related security industries have a 150 billion per annum and growing budget, this would be almost impossible to do.

        It is also disgusting that the genesis for this organization was created as much by dems as rethugs.

        "The fact which the politician faces is merely that there is less honor among thieves than was supposed, and not the fact that they are thieves." Thoreau

        by shigeru on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:46:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I agree that it should be disbanded (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          shigeru

          It was cobbled together in the first instance and became a seedbed for the disastrous combination of incomptence, power-lust and corruption. After such a beginning, any improvement is more than unlikely.

          When DHS got the Secret Service, even that was infected, and it is now in danger of becoming or being perceived as a Pretorian Guard, a potential king-maker in itself and a danger to the nation. The Secret Service in particular should be returned to its traditional post at Treasury.  

    •  I think Iowa has caved (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shirah

      The DOT says that Iowa has applied for an extension to comply with Real ID ... however people will still be able to get non-Real ID licenses.

      http://www.dot.state.ia.us/...

      Sigh. Maybe Gov. Culver needs to receive some complaints.
      http://www.governor.iowa.gov/

      •  Well, that reads as sufficently vague enough that (0+ / 0-)

        there may be plans to become compliant, sometime.  But, then again, the State of Iowa gave up its state run monopoly of liquor sales to get 'more' federal money for highways and interstates.  It was a sweet deal...40+ million in liquor sales for highways.  All thrown away for whatever the Feds want to give us...  Courtesy of Branstad, the asshole.

  •  I don't know why (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Neon Mama

    but the phrase "National ID card" reminded me of The Foremen classic, "Every Man For Himself. If you don't have at least one CD (Folk Heroes is my personal favorite, but, alas, it's out of print) do yourself a favor. They are brilliant songwriters and musicians. And very, very, very funny. It's dated, but I tell you, it got me through some really bad times.

    Everyman (for Himself)
    words and music by Roy Zimmerman
    © 1995 Watunes (BMI)
    (From "Folk Heroes")

    (spoken)
    On November 9th, 1994, the morning after the election, I returned to my polling place to find the mangled remains of the American liberal buried under a conservative landslide. Male or female or black or white, I couldn't tell. But I knew it was a liberal because the heart was still on the sleeve and the knees were still jerking. Well, now the ashes have been scattered, though not as scattered as the liberal when he was alive... and the conservatives have come to power and things are changing. There's a new show on PBS called "Mister Rogers' Gate-Guarded Community." And the conservatives themselves are changing... they're morphing. They're the Mighty Morphin Power Brokers. And they're wearing the power ties, and they're taking the power lunches, but you know, the one thing that they've been missing up to this point, is a power ballad...

    (sung)
    When your heart is heavy
    When the night has been too long
    When every road you choose
    Muddies up your shoes
    And leads you wrong

    When you're cold and lonely
    When your rope is at its end
    When darkness clouds the skies
    And tears fill your eyes
    When you just need a friend

    Don't look at me
    Wipe your own damn nose
    And if I've kept you down or made you cry
    Or trampled all your hopes and dreams
    Well, that's the way it goes

    In heaven there's no hate or war
    In heaven no one's hungry or poor
    In heaven they hold hands evermore
    But we're on earth
    And here on earth
    It's everyman for himself

    When you're a Black, Chicano, Native-American, Jewish lesbian folk singer
    And this morning when you woke up you hit your head on the steering wheel
    You're shoulder deep in shit
    And you just wanna quit
    I know how you can get a handgun without the usual background check

    Get off my lawn
    Pay your rent on time

    And if I hire illegals to build a wall around my property
    It's just 'cause I'm
    Tough on crime

    In heaven there's no fear or need
    In heaven no one's rabid with greed
    In heaven you get laid guaranteed
    But we're on earth
    And here on earth
    It's everyman for himself

    'Cause there's a hot wind a'blowin'
    Can't you feel it?
    It's blowin' hard!
    So, where's your national pride, brother?
    Where's your national I.D. card?

    (spoken)
    And even as we send the American liberal off to the great society in the sky, we await the day when he'll be joined by his friends, the literate and the tolerant... when all the frivolous arts and sciences are replaced by nationwide network of publicly-funded putting greens... the government at the people, and above the people, and in spite of the people shall not perish, but that certain people shall... and until then, my friends...

    (sung)
    It's every man for himself!

    It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. -- Thomas Jefferson

    by AtlantaJan on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:34:04 PM PDT

  •  There are ways to make this right. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Neon Mama, Purple Priestess, gdwtch52

    If a state were really sincere about ID and security, they would be proactive: They'd take ID machines to nursing homes and into storefronts in the lowest income areas. They'd make every RealID free, convenient, and exert "affirmative action" to make them very easy to get for homeless people, the ill, the handicapped, and the very old.

    If a state does not do this, it's a Republican voter suppression scam.

    •  Nothing can make it "convenient" (0+ / 0-)

      to provide three independent forms of ID that will satisfy this law's requirements, which will be the big hurdle for many of the poor. And the homeless?  Forget it!

      Moreover, nothing justifies the expense of this misbegotten venture, whether conducted with warm-fuzzy "outreach" or without.  

  •  1984 is closer than we think.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Neon Mama

    scary stuff, infuriating stuff, and ultimately the straw that breaks the camels back (hopefully!).

    I think, therefore I am........................... Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose

    by Lilyvt on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:53:06 PM PDT

  •  Bad and worse... (4+ / 0-)

    I am generally a conservative, and agree with the diarist that this is a powerful issue that could peel votes away from Republicans.

    It is a blatant over-extension of federal power and should be chopped off at the knees.

    There is a sad parallel --

    Millions of our fellow citizens are willingly giving away intimately personal data in exchange for discounts at the supermarket, entry into a contest, etc.

    Knowledge is power.  Be careful who you share it with.

    Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

    by dinotrac on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:58:24 PM PDT

  •  Real Dumb (0+ / 0-)

    Anyone else make that joke yet?

  •  Real ID unconstitutional? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Purple Priestess

    Not as long as SCOTUS is controlled by Bush and Cheney's lackeys.  They'll rule any police-state measures constitutional, so long as there's a Republican in the White House to wield the powers of 'Commander-In-Chief' that go along with them.

    So, another good reason to vote for whatever Democrat wins the nomination:  Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas will NEVER allow a non-Republican to have at their disposal the authoritarian mechanisms that King George IV and the Monarchist Party have fashioned.

  •  That's my Governor! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    smintheus

    Gov. Schweitzer has a particularly good ear for hearing what Montanans want. Nobody here wants to be completely profiled in a federal database open to Secretary Condoleezza Rice.

    As one Montana kossack said several years ago;

    "He's sort of our Howard Dean on the Ranch".

    Who will stop this war of lies? Keith Olbermann May 23rd, 2007

    by Ed in Montana on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:19:40 PM PDT

  •  End Times (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    smintheus

    My mother in law gave me a stack of magazines she subscribes to in yet another futile effort to convert me. I must admit that I was startled to find such rancor about this issue, coming as it does from the most cheerleading section of the population. When even the whack jobs are on your side, it makes you wonder if anyone actually supports Real ID.

    "Eschew Ofbfuscation." - Mark Twain

    by windsngr on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:56:22 PM PDT

  •  The I.D. number will have 18 digits, three groups (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    smintheus

    of six....

    (six, six, six)

    This idea was thrown at me by a guy who is still a member of a church he invited me to back in 1998 - and back when the Euro came out, their argument then was that we were about to go to the world-wide currency and that in a moneyless society our account numbers would have 18 digits of three groups of six.

    Just thought I'd toss in the idea that there are people in our midst who see Armageddon in every fist fight, and see Jesus as the ultimate driving force behind every new idea, good or bad.

    George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

    by snafubar on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 05:09:35 PM PDT

  •  Oh please, harrass citizens at airports! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    smintheus, shirah, Purple Priestess

    Nothing would smack that hornet nest harder than for citizens of non-supplicating states to be hassled at airports over Real ID.

    Please, please?

    From the rich to the poor, only one thing trickles down.

    by jimbo92107 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 05:12:40 PM PDT

    •  and obviously they know that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shirah

      It was an empty threat, a transparently empty threat, and ME, NH, SC, and MT laughed in Chertoff's face. A lot of other states are starting to find their courage as it dawned on them that DHS has no authority to mess with states, overrule the Constitution, and harrass people as they go about their lives. DHS desperately wants to save face without showing how powerless it is.

      So, yeah, Dems need to dare DHS to take a whack at people.

  •  I have a "REAL" I.D. story. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    smintheus, Clio2

    I lost my driver's license (or so I thought) when I lost my wallet as I was moving to a new state and about to apply for a new job. Gotta fill out my I-9 form or I can't get hired, and I was short that essential item on the approved ID list.

    So I drove all the way to my old state (since the requirements for getting a duplicate license there were easier than getting a new one in my new state with no other state driver's license)

    I presented for them 3 company photo ID cards spanning five years; 3 college photo ID cards dating twelve years, four expired drivers licenses from three states dating back 20 years, and I even had my high school ID card that had a photo on it from 1983.

    That;s an unbroken sequential history of 10 photo I.D. cards spanning over 20 years.  

    Which was all worthelss to the DMV. All of that was considered insufficient because those ID's weren't on the approved list.

    And yet there I was, a guy who's physical appearance changed littlen over 20 years, and my name and all of that address information could be verified through any background check. I was even able to do a remarkable job of proving just enough scratches and bent corners on the old I.D.'s to make them look as plausibly old and worn as they should have been....

    All of that was no good.

    But they would accept a duplicate birth certificate which I was able to get through the mail as long as I paid $175 and used a major credit card, without producing ANY photo ID.

    They would accept a bank statement and a utility bill that anyone could have gotten by raiding my mailbox.

    They would accept a duplicate SS card that I also got through the mail.

    But not ten photo I.D.s that spanned two decades.

    That's my salute to DHS, because when I wrote a letter to the governor of my state giving my reasons why the whole thing was absurd and worthless - that we should be so lucky that our terrorists keep the same appearance and name for twenty years - his letter began with ,

    "After Septempber 11, 2001...."

    I found my wallet under the front seat of the car.

    Real ID won't cure paranoia or stupidity.  

    George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

    by snafubar on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 05:32:04 PM PDT

  •  I could kiss you (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    smintheus

    just for "booboisie".  :o)

    I have the distinction of being called a media whore by Courtney Love. -Maynard J. Keenan

    by arielle on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 05:44:23 PM PDT

  •  ID topic much appreciated... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Clio2

    Thanks for this update.  Good one.

    Perhaps I've made this point before, but here goes --

    The database-connected ID is a frightening prospect, because when the citizen hands over his ID for clearance, the citizen is no longer telling the questioner who he is, the database is telling both the questioner AND the citizen who the citizen is.  

    As soon as we have a national ID system, the citizen's identity no longer belongs to the citizen; rather it belongs to the database.

    I don't know about you, but I don't want a database telling me who I am.

  •  I'm sure the airlines ... (0+ / 0-)

    ... will love the potential loss of millions of passengers. Just what they need in a down economy.

    Could be an interesting death match between GOP corporatists and the bedwetters.

  •  Kim Stanley Robinson and RFID (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    smintheus

    One of the interesting issues in Kim Stanley Robinson's recent book Fifty Degrees Below is the hero's attempts to avoid being bugged by sinister forces.

    And despite what the intro says, this book is about a Washington DC where the weather is very, very cold, not very, very wet. That was the first book in the series.

  •  Hillary voted Yes on Real ID (0+ / 0-)

    Hillary voted for Real ID.

    Now she says: "I believe we need to seriously re-examine Real ID and make changes that take into account legitimate concerns raised by states. I have long expressed concern with the Real ID Act, dating back to its initial consideration in the Senate in the spring of 2005.

  •  I really shouldn't be surprised at this point (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Clio2

    but I did hear Chertoff say not too long ago that almost every single state was on board with Real ID. Looking at your chart I would say his honesty is right in line with the rest of the Bush Administration.

    Love that "power of the purse!" It looks so nice up there on the mantle (and not the table) next to the "subpoena power."

    by Sacramento Dem on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:16:19 PM PDT

  •  I've written about "REAL ID" (0+ / 0-)

    the wedge issue is about Citizenship. No more, no less.

    "My case is alter'd, I must work for my living." Moll Cut-Purse, The Roaring Girl - 1612, England's First Actress

    by theRoaringGirl on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:21:20 AM PDT

  •  Real ID: One-stop ID theft shopping (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Clio2

    The hell with citizenship! Real ID is an identity theft's paradise, his own Mall of America, his Amazon.com.

    US government systems are THE most hacked in the world, and now we learn that all you need to do is be a low-level contractor with no hacking skills at all.

    Until the day comes (and it won't) that the feds can guarantee that this won't become one-stop shopping for identity theft, this whole concept needs to die.

  •  Consolidation of current horrors (0+ / 0-)

    Although opposition of Real ID is not misplaced, what is even more horrible is what is currently done using our state driver's licenses.

    I wonder how many folks are even aware that, pursuant to the USAPATRIOT Act, none of you can have a bank account (Checking, Savings, etc) without a valid, unexpired photo driver's license on file.

    How about the USAPATRIOT Act as a wedge issue? I would reasonably presume that this community would be more supportive and more willing to shoot that down, than a proposed law that is not properly funded and already hitting resistance.

    Cheers

    I am crass and hostile. If you want to be comforted and babied, unplug your internet connection and call your parents.

    by nanobubble on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:50:41 AM PDT

  •  I like the idea of a national ID (0+ / 0-)

    Seems like in the past in was always the ultra right wing railing about the horrors of a national ID. You know, federalism vs. "states rights."

    •  That's just because only the utra right wing (0+ / 0-)

      was paranoid enough to think it might actually happen!

      (Hm. Their prediction on this one thing was correct. Amazing.)

      "State's rights" isn't ultra right wing, by the way, necessarily. The whole Republican Party was very big on "states' rights" -- until they won the White House.  

      By the way, you haven't said why you like the idea of a national ID card. You've only linked the idea of opposition with the right wing. You haven't said anything positive about the concept.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site