> If you don't have enough to worry about, here's one more little irritating detail. Have you heard about Real ID?

I've heard of it enough to know that it's a bad idea.

> A new federal law that goes into effect in 2009 will require every driver in the US to have a Real ID, which requires you to have your birth certificate, social security number, and passport scanned into a national computer system.

Ok, if hackers can sneak into FBI files, what's to prevent them from entering this sort of thing? It's just teeming with juicy material. It's a lot safer just getting the stuff on good old fashioned paper and locking it away in a safe bolted to the floor. And may I add computer problems? How many of us here can say that Windows is really that reliable? Any takers? I'm fairly certain no one in the government uses a Mac, intellegence jokes aside.

> Congress passed the bill without funding, but state governments are responsible following 200 pages of guidelines to get the job done. The cost is estimated to be in the billions of dollars spread over the fifty states.

Why does Congress even pass legislation without knowing how to fund it? First the No Child Left Behind Act, and now this. I mean, the economy where I live is going down, down, down, and doesn't appear to go up anytime soon. How is anyone supposed to fund this without the cash? Sell our souls to the Government? *shiver*
And the 200 pages of guidelines...I'm starting to think that indivudual state Governments are going to say no to this, primarily because it's too much work and hassle even to try.

> Somewhere in those 200 pages, maybe it will deal with the problem of people who never travel out of the country and don't have a passport. I would not be surprised if Big Brother soon requires us to have a birth certificate, social security number, and a passport issued when we are born.

The first two are already taken care of, I think. It's the passport deal that'll be new. Although given the current state of the Government - or Big Brother, as many seem to refer to it - anything hectic, pointless, or bad is possible

> It's all in the name of security, of course, but while it may make us a bit safer, it also erodes our freedom a bit.

*Pfffft* Security. Funny word. Synonym for "Control". Besides, what's life without a little risk? I'm convinced that if we simply lightened up by just a teensy-weensy little bit, countries wouldn't view the US as a major pain-in-the-neck kind of country.
And which right does this shatter? I'm thinking Privacy, although that's not necessarily stated in the Constitution, merely implied.

Master"If I sound cynical of the Gov't, it's because I am"wabbit