OT Re: [ale] Big Brother Wins, We lose... From /. Real-ID Passes U.S. Senate 100-0

[rhia]

Sigh...

Was a quick tongue-in-check reply, the black humor of which was
obviously lost.

However, as a total independent with no party affiliations but
exhibiting small 'l' libertarian leanings... let us just say that the
concept of States Rights still holds quite a bit of appeal to me. I will
leave this part of the discussion at that.

Reasonable is in the eyes of the beholder.  I'm sure the Russian purges
were quite reasonable to Stalin. (And no, that is not comparing this
government to that one, it is simply a comment on what is
"reasonable.') 

Quite done, now, as I see no purpose in continuing this conversation on
this list. Thanks so much for playing! 

-- 
rhia
Excuse me, please. What universe is this?


On Wed, 2005-05-11 at 12:18 -0400, James Baldwin wrote:
> On May 11, 2005, at 11:33 AM, rhia wrote:
> 
> > So, true, it's not a REQUIREMENT, any more than the Mafia  
> > "requires" you
> > to pay protection fees. But, if you want something from either, you  
> > have
> > to participate in areas you probably would rather not go.
> 
> That is a poor analogy. The Federal government should be in a  
> position to decide which identification meets its acceptance  
> standards. It should not be required to accept any identification as  
> binding simply because a State deemed it acceptable within that  
> State's boundaries.
> 
> It is hypocritical to demand that States be allowed to produce  
> whatever identification they wish based on whatever requirements they  
> defined and have these accepted everywhere while refusing the Federal  
> government be allowed to require that specific identification meet  
> its requirements. So, they are not requiring the States do anything  
> more than they wish. It will require the citizens of that state to  
> secure other forms of identification if they choose to elect  
> officials who wish to not meet these _reasonable_ minimum requirements
>