Re: The Nazification Of America ("Show Me Your Papers" - Day 1)
J.A. Terranson wrote: Durbin was right. And he didn't even scratch the surface! Anyone who thinks this "Real ID Act" is about getting false ID out of the hands of "The Terrorists" is an idiot: they will simply print their own drivers licenses - this is about forcing the regular population to get used to intrastate passports. This act essentially forces you to have a passport for everyday things like banking, car purchases and certain repairs, checks, etc. That's the point of course. The idea behind the laws is to make it very inconvenient to operate in society without some supposed proof of identity. A "problem" the government will then "solve" by issuing ID cards to everyone. Which will then be made compulsory. "Show me your papers, sir!" The British government is taking the same line, though isn't so far along the route as you are - laws going through Parliament right now. Interestingly they are blaming the US for the need to have them. They started by saying it was for terrorism (which is crap as we all know), then they said it was to prevent social security fraud (which is probably part of the reason they want them, but not a big enough deal to get voters behind it), then to prevent "ID theft" (does the opposite of course by introducing a single point of failure), then to stop illegal immigration (it won't of course, it'll just make illegal immigrants even more vulnerable to exploitation by employers or worse) & now and again there has been bleating about "protecting the children" (as if rapists are going to put "I am a predatory sex criminal" on their application form) But last week, they just blamed you. Oh they said, the Americans are demanding biometric ID from all visitors. So if you have a passport you will need it. As most British people have passports anyway, and it would be silly to have a passport that could be used anywhere but the USA, it'll save money to issue one single biometric ID for everybody... At the moment it looks as if the pass-card laws in the UK will fail. Well not fail on paper, because the spin doctors and PR merchants won't allow that to happen, but be watered down in the House of Lords so far that they won't have much effect. Of course that's still bad because the principle will still be there for some future government to exploit. They are desperately unpopular with the country at large - though sadly it seems to be the cost and inconvenience rather than the principle that people object to. The Conservatives are voting against mainly because that's what opposition parties do in British politics, but if they ever get back into power you can be sure they will adopt the plan with a few minor cosmetic changes so they can pretend it has been improved. More of their MPs support it than Labour do - but party discipline being what it is in Parliament its unlikely that more than the same 20-odd Labour MPs will vote against it in Parliament. And whenever a journalists asks a Cabinet Minister why they are spending 20 billions on flashy plastic cards (how many extra police could they employ for that money?) they say that they have to do it because the USA is making them do it. But its not our fault. Its all those nasty Americans. Don't blame me, Mummy. The bad man made me do it.
Re: Plame != Palme :-) Re: Palme revealed by... Karl Rove!
On Sat, 2 Jul 2005, Bill Stewart wrote: > You're mixing up assassinating a president with > treason performed for revenge and crude political gain. No, I'm merely a dyslexic typist Bill :-/ As many years of my posts clearly show :-) > At 11:56 AM 7/2/2005, J.A. Terranson wrote: > >5000 Quatloos that nobody thinks this is (a) impeachment material, or (b) > >prosecutable since it was done by Rove... > > It's only impeachable if Bush knew and couldn't justify > his lack of response as executive privilege. > I'd assume his handlers have a standing agreement of > plausible deniability for that sort of thing. Sure. Just like the last fuckhead in that office, who was nevertheless pursued with zeal and vigor (correctly so IMNSHO). > As far as prosecutable goes, it'd sure be fun to watch, > unless of course there's another runaway bride > or dead puppy or somebody burns a flag on July 4th > or the comet blows up real good > or whatever else it takes to distract the public for 15 minutes. I personally think that O'Conner's resignation will be the distractant. Maybe amplified by a Gonzalez nomination. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0xBD4A95BF "Never belong to any party, always oppose privileged classes and public plunderers, never lack sympathy with the poor, always remain devoted to the public welfare, never be satisfied with merely printing news, always be drastically independent, never be afraid to attack wrong, whether by predatory plutocracy or predatory poverty." Joseph Pulitzer 1907 Speech
Plame != Palme :-) Re: Palme revealed by... Karl Rove!
You're mixing up assassinating a president with treason performed for revenge and crude political gain. At 11:56 AM 7/2/2005, J.A. Terranson wrote: 5000 Quatloos that nobody thinks this is (a) impeachment material, or (b) prosecutable since it was done by Rove... It's only impeachable if Bush knew and couldn't justify his lack of response as executive privilege. I'd assume his handlers have a standing agreement of plausible deniability for that sort of thing. As far as prosecutable goes, it'd sure be fun to watch, unless of course there's another runaway bride or dead puppy or somebody burns a flag on July 4th or the comet blows up real good or whatever else it takes to distract the public for 15 minutes.
Posion Pill for ED?
Hey...can some clever Cypherpunk think of a nice poison pill for ED? Theoretically, something like that is possible, but my only ideas aren't so hot. For instance, and elderly couple could sow some form of radioactive substance into their grounds, in quantities that would take longer than their life expectancy to kill them. Of course, a cleanup might be possible, but that would theoretically wack out the cost structures. There might be other less drastic measures that can be taken, however, such as finding a way to boost up the property costs so that the developers lose interest or perhaps even creating a very hard-to-find "landlord" that is collecting vast sums (on paper) for the rent of the property. These are crummy ideas, so relax. But I suspect something is possible. -TD
Re:The Nazification Of America ("Show Me Your Papers" - Day 1)
Fine, I'll just order the birth certificate and get it over with, right? Wrong. New York wants affirmative proof of identity for a copy now: passport or your [missing] original birth certificate. Anyone else see a circular problem here? http://www.health.state.ny.us/vital_records/birth.htm Identification Requirements - application must be submitted with copies of either A or B: One (1) of the following forms of valid photo-ID: Driver license Non-Driver Photo-ID Card Passport Employment ID Two (2) of the following showing the applicant's name and address: Utility or telephone bills Letter from a government agency dated within the last six (6) months Employment ID (like school ID) can be issued by anyone since anyone in America can employ or teach others. If you want to be fancy, pick up one of these. http://www.staples.com/Catalog/Browse/Sku.asp?PageType=1&Sku=AVE02900 DCF
RE: Posion Pill for ED?
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Tyler Durden > Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 2:56 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Posion Pill for ED? > > > Hey...can some clever Cypherpunk think of a nice poison pill for ED? > Theoretically, something like that is possible, but my only > ideas aren't so > hot. For instance, and elderly couple could sow some form of > radioactive > substance into their grounds, in quantities that would take > longer than > their life expectancy to kill them. > > Of course, a cleanup might be possible, but that would > theoretically wack > out the cost structures. > > There might be other less drastic measures that can be taken, > however, such > as finding a way to boost up the property costs so that the > developers lose > interest or perhaps even creating a very hard-to-find > "landlord" that is > collecting vast sums (on paper) for the rent of the property. > > These are crummy ideas, so relax. But I suspect something is possible. > > -TD 1. Make your property a habitat for endangered species; there are plenty of plants, bugs, and small animals that qualify. Getting them there in the first place is probably illegal, but once they're established, no development which destroys their habitat is legal, generally speaking. 2. Similarly, and even simpler, turn strategic portions of your property into wetlands or vernal pools. Similar protections vs development apply. Peter Trei
