Some lawmakers in Madison are questioning a Wisconsin DOT plan to begin implementing Real ID, and rightly so:

Drivers would have to wait several weeks to get their licenses a year from now, under a Department of Transportation plan to comply with a federal law requiring more secure state IDs.

But key lawmakers are skeptical of the $17 million plan, saying they do not want to pay for the Real ID law at a time when the state faces a record shortfall of more than $5 billion.

"I don't think we need to fund it right now," said Senate Majority Leader Russ Decker (D-Weston). "I think we're going to need that cash to put people to work."

When people visit the Division of Motor Vehicles now, they leave with a license or state ID in hand. But starting next November under the DOT plan, they would get a paper receipt - which would include all the information on the driver's license and a black-and-white photo - that could be used as a license for 60 days.
...
At least 11 states have said they won't follow the law, and observers say the law is likely to be repealed or modified with Democrats about to control Congress and the White House.

Among the governors signing laws saying their states wouldn't comply is Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano - President-elect Barack Obama's apparent choice to run the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the law.
...
Busalacchi is asking for $17 million from mid-2009 to mid-2011 to cover the cost of implementing Real ID.

The measure would be funded with a $10 surcharge that as of January increased the cost of a three-year license to $28 and an eight-year renewal to $34.

This is a complete farce, and needs to end now.  There are several reasons why the DOT needs to have their plans stopped cold in their tracks by the legislature.

First of all, we simply cannot afford the real dollar costs associated with implementing Real ID.  With the state deficit looking to hit record levels, does it really make sense to take on a unfunded federal mandate?  After all, the $17 million dollar bill is almost guaranteed to grow, and grow significantly if past performance is any measure.  Real ID is not just about checking that you are a legal citizen, and upgrading the physical card you carry.  Real ID also requires that states share their driver's license databases with other states and the federal government.  I'm unaware of any major computer database upgrade that has taken place in Wisconsin which did not significantly overrun its budget, and/or fall short of the required functionality.

Second, Real ID is very simply an attack on state sovereignty.  Driver's licensing is something which has always been, and should continue to be, something within the purview of the state government without Federal interference.  However, time and time again, the Federal government has interfered in many state areas, usually by withdrawing federal highway dollars.  This happened with the 55 MPH speed limit, and the 21 year drinking age.  Now the threat is that "insecure" cards will not get you on an airplane.  First of all, this is actually untrue.  You can currently tell the TSA that you lost your driver's license, and still get through.  You will simply need to undergo extra screening, but you will still get on your plane.  Secondly, this helps to create a "papers please" attitude in this country that we usually associate with Communism.  The idea that American citizens may need to have a passport to travel within their own country is frightening.

Finally, Real ID will not make us more secure from terrorism.  In fact, Real ID will do more to make us insecure.  Bruce Schneier has written extensively on the topic, including this article written last year.  I suggest you read the entire thing, but to sum up most of the arguments against Real ID:

• Real ID creates a "super card" which will be forged.  Because it will become so ubiquitous, forging one card will gain you access to much more.  Having more decentralized identification is actually more secure.
• Real ID is not secure, because you will be able to get a "Real ID" by using easily forged "feeder documents" like birth certificates and social security cards.
• It puts DMV employees in the untenable position of trying to determine whether someone is a legal citizen by examining extra papers, something they don't have the expertise to do.
• It will create massive linked databases that will be the ultimate honey pot for anyone interested in identity theft.  How many times in the last month have you heard of lost government computers with portions of databases?
• Real ID perpetuates the myth that you can infer someone's intent if you know their identity.  This makes it likely that innocent people might be wrongly detained because of false positives, and that dangerous people will be let through because of false negatives.

For all these reasons, and more, 11 states have already rejected Real ID.  In fact, the governor of one of those states will likely become Obama's Homeland Security Secretary.  Because of this backlash, there is an overwhelming sentiment that Real ID will be revisited very soon in some way.  It is only prudent for Wisconsin to wait before taking on a costly upgrade that may ultimately be unnecessary.

This just goes to prove what I was talking about in my original post on sobriety checkpoints.  They are used by police as dragnets to look for minor offenses to raise revenue, while not helping public safety one bit.  Here is a story about police in DeForest using "fake checkpoints" to ticket people:

This weekend DeForest police will again be intentionally creating the false impression of a random checkpoint for drunken drivers.

Random checkpoints are illegal in Wisconsin and 11 other states.

About three weeks ago, police set up a fake checkpoint along Highway V. Officers wore bright reflective vests, set up cones and electronic road signs warning of a "OWI task force ahead."

But instead of pulling over drivers randomly, officers stopped motorists for any infractions they spotted, including a broken license plate light. That effort resulted in 10 citations, 30 warnings and one non-alcohol-related arrest.

Dane County has had 29 traffic fatalities so far this year, 15 of which were alcohol-related.

You'll notice that the last time they did this, there were no arrests for drunk driving.  They didn't find a single drunk driver.  Yet immediately after they talk about what they did find, they try to justify this with statistics about drunk driving, despite the fact that they didn't arrest any in this dragnet.  In fact, I would venture to guess that by putting up signs advertising an "OWI task force ahead", they are actually going to scare drunk drivers into finding other roads home, and avoiding the checkpoint.

I would guess that the actual purpose behind the signage is to lull drivers into a false sense of security.  Have a broken tail light?  You think you'll go through just fine because you haven't been drinking.  That is until, surprise, you get nailed with a ticket.  In the mean time, the guy who just slammed down a couple extra car bombs with his buddies before driving home turned onto a side road and crashed into your neighbor killing their child in the passenger seat.  But hey, at least they stopped your dangerous broken tail light.

Drunk driving is a problem.  The solution is to have stricter penalties for multiple offenders, and better roaving patrols which look for actual evidence of drunk driving, like swerving in your lane, stopping for green lights, driving unusally slow, etc.  Cops at checkpoints can't do that.  And there is no guarantee that a drunk driver has a broken tail light.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has a continuing series called "Wasted in Wisconsin" which is looking at the culture of drinking in the state, as well as the problem of drunk driving.  Today's article is focusing on "sobriety checkpoints" as a possible solution.  The article points out that Wisconsin is one of only 12 states that legally forbids the use of sobriety checkpoints.  Governor Doyle, as well as various groups like MADD would like to see this changed:

Gov. Jim Doyle called Thursday for tougher laws to fight drunken driving - including legalizing roadside sobriety checkpoints in Wisconsin.

"Most of us are in much more danger from a drunk driver than we are from a person that is going to break into our house," he said. "I don't think we should have a ban (on checkpoints)... I think it can be a useful tool, used appropriately and in a limited way."

The Democratic governor said courts have set criteria for the constitutionality of checkpoints. Any new Wisconsin law would have to follow those guidelines, ensuring stops are not made in a discriminatory fashion, he said.
...
Milwaukee County sheriff's deputies have been hampered by the checkpoint ban, said Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. Politicians should "stop dancing around the issue" and rescind the ban, he said.

This idea will do absolutely nothing to curb drunk driving in this state, and will hamper the rights of citizens to be free from unreasonable searches as guaranteed by the Constitution.  I'll cover both of these issues in more detail.

First, to their effectiveness.  While groups like MADD tout the effectiveness of DUI checkpoints, the fact is that drunk driving related deaths went down significantly year over year from about 1982 to 1993.  Much of that credit should go to groups like MADD which created large national education campaigns on the dangers of drunk driving.  In 1982, 3/5ths of all traffic deaths were alcohol related.  The first year in which they didn't go down was 1993, which is not long after the United States Supreme Court ruled that sobriety check points were legal.  They have leveled off since then (with minor up and down ticks every year).  It should be noted that these statistics are sometimes disputed because "alcohol related" does not mean "alcohol caused".  If anyone, even a passenger, had alcohol in their system, then it is used in that statistic depending on the state.

In fact, when comparing states that do have checkpoints with their counterparts that don't, and relating them to traffic deaths, there is little statistical difference in their effectiveness.  It should also be noted that Michigan, which originated the US Supreme Court case in question, is one of the 12 states that outlaw sobriety checkpoints, because after being remanded to the State Court, they ruled that they did not pass Constitutional muster in that state.  There is even some evidence that suggests that sobriety checkpoints have far lower effectiveness than roving patrols.  The manager for traffic safety of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation testified in their State Supreme Court to their ineffectiveness:

Mr. Rader testified that, based upon statistics available for several Pennsylvania counties during the years 1999-2001, approximately 0.71 percent of all drivers stopped at sobriety checkpoints were charged with DUI; he noted additionally that this is relatively close to the national average of 1.0 percent. Furthermore, Mr. Rader confirmed that, during the 1999-2001 period, the total number of law enforcement manpower-hours expended per DUI arrest at sobriety checkpoints was 22.84, and the total number of manpower-hours per arrest -- including both law enforcement and administrative personnel -- was 28.77. By comparison, 18.82 manpower-hours were required for each DUI arrest stemming from a roving patrol, and 7.69 percent of all drivers stopped by such patrols were charged with DUI.

In Pennsylvania, roving patrols are ten times more effective at stopping drunk drivers!  In Arizona, they had no effectiveness when reinstated after 10 years of not being used.  Supporters still touted them as being "educational" for people since everyone stopped was handed a pamphlet on drunk driving.  One Sherriff had the audacity to say that it was "good they were arresting so few people."  It's the perfect catch 22.  When a state doesn't have sobriety check points, we need them to catch drunk drivers.  When drunk drivers aren't caught at sobriety checkpoints, then that is a show of their effectiveness.  Under what conditions then would they not be found useful?  It's totally bogus.

In fact, there is evidence that traffic deaths may increase due to these checkpoints because the worst of the drunk drivers (those who are seriously impaired with high BAC levels) avoid the checkpoints when spotted (and often because their locations are advertised in the paper), while those who have had a drink or two continue to go through, because they don't feel impaired.  Many of these drivers have a BAC below the .08 legal limit, but that doesn't stop some people from being arrested.  If there is any "impairment" as judged purely at the discretion of the officer, and your BAC is above .01 then you could be arrested.  Even the founder of MADD sees this as neo-prohibition and thinks it's going too far:

Lightner has moved on from MADD, and since then has protested the shift from attacking drunk driving to attacking drinking in general. "I worry that the movement I helped create has lost direction," she told The Cleveland Plain Dealer in 1992. BAC legislation, she said, "ignores the real core of the problem....If we really want to save lives, let's go after the most dangerous drivers on the road." Lightner said MADD has become an organization far more "neoprohibitionist" than she had envisioned. "I didn't start MADD to deal with alcohol," she said. "I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving."

But if they aren't effective, then why do so many police organizations, like the Milwaukee County Sherriff want them?  Well, the reality is that the "court protections" are either largely ignored, of other court decisions have increasingly allowed police to search for other things while they are checking your sobriety... and sometimes without even that pretense.  In California, just one checkpoint netted $300,000 in tickets and fees, not for drunk driving, but for invalid licenses.  They end up turning into police dragnets for all sorts of non-alcohol related stops and are seen as cash cows for police:

For years, DUI checkpoints have proven an effective way to catch drunken drivers and prevent others from getting behind the wheel, but what some police agencies are now using those checkpoints for and who is being targeted is sparking a growing controversy. The concern is that police are not only using the checkpoints as a way to enforce other laws but also as a way to make money — especially since cities such as Sacramento make $70 every time they impound a car at a DUI checkpoint, even if that car’s driver was not suspected of drinking and driving.
...
At issue is whether police agencies are misusing taxpayer money by using state DUI grant money as an opportunity to crack down on a host of other laws…. "It’s misrepresentation. It’s almost a fraudulent use of resources," state Sen. Gilbert Cedillo, D-Los Angeles, said.
...
Records show that at the Sacramento Police Department’s last five DUI checkpoints, officers arrested 22 suspected drunken drivers. But they also wrote 315 citations and impounded 259 vehicles belonging to people arrested for driving without a license or driving on a suspended license. Sacramento’s police chief defends the use of DUI checkpoints beyond the bounds of just cracking down on suspected drunken drivers.

So despite the supposed court protections granted, state laws often times still don't reflect them and courts rarely protect your rights after the fact.  The reality is that the Wisconsin State law specifically prohibiting their use is one of the few things protecting your rights, and we need to keep it in place.

I am not a fan of drunk driving by any means.  In fact, I think that increased penalties for those who are found guilty of drunk driving multiple times are long overdue.  I would even think that a law which increases penalties for those who are found guilt fo drunk driving and have a BAC over .15 might be useful.  Over half of all alcohol related fatalities occur when the driver has a BAC over .15.  However, we need to take effective measures to combat drunk driving, while at the same time not harassing safe drivers or taking away their Constitutionally guaranteed rights.  Sobriety checkpoints are neither effective, nor are they Constitutionally sound.

John McCain is truly a hypocrite.  Not only has he restricted speech through his famous "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act", otherwise known as McCain-Feingold, otherwise known as the Incumbent Protection Act, but he also was one of the Senators he voted unanimously for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.  Among various provisions which limit the ability to use things they have purchased reasonably, it created something called a "safe harbor" for online distributors of content.  Essentially, it gives immunity from prosecution to any online content provider for posting copyrighted material so long as they promptly remove potentially infringing material upon receipt of a notice from a copyright holder.

These "take down notices" have been used ever since the passage of the DMCA to chill speech, and fight against the use of copyrighted material which previously had always been considered "fair use".  Because of the potential penalties involved for violation of the safe harbor, it puts a great deal of burden on those who choose to speak, while creating very little cost to those who try to suppress it.  Most online service providers never even review these claims later, because the cost of taking a chance is simply too high.

People have been complaining about these provisions for years.  John McCain just discovered them, because some of his campaign videos have been taken down from YouTube due to these safe harbor take down notices.  His solution was to send a letter to YouTube suggesting that videos submitted to the company from verified campaigns should be given special treatment, and manually review instead of immediately being taken down like videos from other content creators.  In other words, John McCain thinks that everyone should not be subject to equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.  In case you're wondering, the Obama Campaign has faced similar problems with take down notices.

What makes speech by his campaign more worthy of review than mine or anyone else's?  Do we have a two-tier system of speech in this country? More importantly, why should a politician not be subject to the exact same laws, and burdens that any ordinary citizen faces?  In fact, I think it is more important for politicians to face the exact same consequences of a law that everyone else faces.  After all, if politicians never experience the negative consequences of a law, then how can we expect change in that law when it goes wrong?

Of course, this isn't the first time McCain has tried to skirt the very laws he's voted for.  In April, he tried to convince the FEC to allow him to break provisions of the BCRA as well.

Bruce Schnei­er teamed up with Jeffery Goldberg to demonstrate exactly how bad the TSA's security procedures are at airports, and how easy it would be for terrorists to bypass.  Schneier authors Schneier on Security, and is a constant critic of the TSA, not because it is poor implementation of otherwise sound policies, but rather because the fundamentals of what they are trying to do are flawed:

"The whole system is designed to catch stupid terrorists," Schnei­er told me. A smart terrorist, he says, won't try to bring a knife aboard a plane, as I had been doing; he'll make his own, in the airplane bathroom. Schnei­er told me the recipe: "Get some steel epoxy glue at a hardware store. It comes in two tubes, one with steel dust and then a hardener. You make the mold by folding a piece of cardboard in two, and then you mix the two tubes together. You can use a metal spoon for the handle. It hardens in 15 minutes."
...
Schnei­er and I walked to the security checkpoint. "Counter­terrorism in the airport is a show designed to make people feel better," he said. "Only two things have made flying safer: the reinforcement of cockpit doors, and the fact that passengers know now to resist hijackers." This assumes, of course, that al-Qaeda will target airplanes for hijacking, or target aviation at all. "We defend against what the terrorists did last week," Schnei­er said. He believes that the country would be just as safe as it is today if airport security were rolled back to pre-9/11 levels. "Spend the rest of your money on intelligence, investigations, and emergency response."

Goldberg went through with various items that are not allowed (including different weapons), fake boarding passes, in one case without ID, all while trying to look as suspicious as possible test the TSA's "alternative mechanisms of detection".  It's shown once again that the TSA is a waste of taxpayer dollars... in essence a form of theft against taxpayers.

Of course, if we were to abolish the TSA, that would also prevent TSA employees from stealing from us in more direct means:

The TSA reached a mind-boggling new low in customer service this week when it was revealed that one agent had single-handedly absconded with over $200,000 worth of travelers' belongings, primarily cameras and laptops, and proceeded to unload his booty on eBay. His latest haul: A near-$50,000 camera that an HBO employee had been traveling with.

The culprit is one Pythias Brown, a New Jersey resident who worked in the TSA department at Newark Liberty Airport. Finally busted, police discovered an inventory of 66 cameras, 31 laptops, assorted jewelry, and more when they searched his home. How'd he finally get caught? Brown snagged a camera belonging to CNN, and they found it for sale on eBay, where Brown had been converting the gear into cash.
...
Of note: Brown appears to have been taking items from checked luggage in the back rooms of the airport, not carry-ons. (One has to imagine you'd notice your $50,000 camera was missing after it came off the x-ray line.) But since consumers are no longer allowed to lock their luggage (or, at least, the TSA is allowed to break those locks as it sees fit), travelers have no real means of protection when it comes to guarding against inside job thievery like this.

This is one reason why I always travel with my camera as a carry on item.  I am always afraid that they would be stolen by a TSA agent during inspection if they were in my checked bags.  The article suggests that if you have anything of value to take with you, that you either put it in a carry-on where you can keep an eye on it, or ship it ahead of you via FedEx.  FedEx will insure lost or stolen items.  Your contract with the airline absolves them of any responsibility for lost or stolen items, even if the government does the stealing.

This story is just outrageous.  It shows the incredible stupidity that some police have:

Linda Willsey saw the car door opening a split second before it hit her. She was biking down Henry Street, on her way home from work at Community Pharmacy, when someone in a parked car swung open the door without looking.

"I think I yelled 'No!'" says Willsey, as the door hit her right side. "I went into the air and landed on my back."

She was taken to the emergency room with multiple contusions and a fractured vertebra. As she was waiting to have X-rays taken, Madison police officer Jean Papalia paid a visit.

"She said, 'Gee, I'm really sorry, but I have to issue you a citation,'" recalls Willsey. The $10 ticket cited a little-known state law that requires bicyclists passing a parked or standing vehicle to allow "a minimum of three feet" between themselves and the car.

Talk about adding insult to injury.  What's worse is that if this law actually exists, it would probably make most bike lanes in Milwaukee illegal... or at least obeying the bike lane lines would make all bikers criminals.  If you look at any of the newly made bike lanes in Milwaukee, they are generally not more than three feet across, and they are directly next to the parking lanes... which means that either a biker obey's bike lane laws, or they obey parked car laws.  In other words, in Milwaukee, it's illegal to ride on a street with a bike lane.

What's worse is this explanation:

But he notes that when a person is injured in a traffic accident, police are obligated to ticket someone, unless they get a supervisor's approval. And Hanson can't think of any law the motorist who hit Willsey violated. "There's nothing specific about opening a door."

Michael Rewey, a board member of the Bicycle Federation of Wisconsin, disagrees. He thinks the driver should have at least been cited for obstructing traffic.

Clearly the car driver was at fault for being inattentive while opening the car door.  Had that door been opened in front of a moving car, instead of a bike, then the owner of the parked car would have been ticketed.  In this case, bikes should be treated no differently than cars.

Bikers already have the constant fear of getting a "door prize" as I call them.  We should have to fear being ticketed for our trouble as well.  Via Off the Couch.

Reason TV on ethanol and ethanol subsidies:

And let's stop starving people in third world nations just to get a few votes from farmers.

If you live in the United Kingdom, I'd suggest you turn off your computer and never turn it on again:

The Government will store "a billion incidents of data exchange a day" as details of every text, email and browsing session in the UK are recorded under new proposals published yesterday.

The information will be made available to police forces in order to crack down on serious crime, but will also be accessible by local councils, health authorities and even Ofsted and the Post Office.
...
However, the information will also be made available to local councils, health authorities and other Government bodies such as Ofsted.

"The main reason for it is to assist in the investigation of crime," says a Home Office spokesperson. "Each local council can make a decision for themselves on what is the most interest to them."

We're really not that much further behind here in the states either.  It's only a matter of time before this is here too.  Is there no end to this persuit of power for the "common good"?  When do people get to say... I don't want you to know about my private life just because I happen to be born here?

A new Rasmussen poll is out regarding the unfairness doctrine:

Nearly half of Americans (47%) believe the government should require all radio and television stations to offer equal amounts of conservative and liberal political commentary, but they draw the line at imposing that same requirement on the Internet. Thirty-nine percent (39%) say leave radio and TV alone, too.

At the same time, 71% say it is already possible for just about any political view to be heard in today’s media, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Twenty percent (20%) do not agree.

Fifty-seven percent (57%) say the government should not require websites and blog sites that offer political commentary to present opposing viewpoints. But 31% believe the Internet sites should be forced to balance their commentary.

So nearly half of those polled want the government to regulate speech, even though nearly three quarters of people believe that all the information is already out there.  Even worse, almost a third want the internet to be regulated!  Sure its not a majority... but its too high for my comfort level.  Not surprising is the demographic breakdown on exactly who wants this regulation:

Democrats are more supportive of government involvement in the airwaves than Republicans and unaffiliated voters. Fifty-four percent (54%) of Democrats favor it, and only 26% are opposed. Republicans and unaffiliated voters are fairly evenly divided.

Even Democrats say hands-off the Internet though but by a far smaller margin than Republicans and unaffiliated voters. Democrats oppose government-mandated balance on the Internet by a 48% to 37% margin. Sixty-one percent (61%) of Republicans reject government involvement in Internet content along with 67% of unaffiliated voters.

Just one more way for the government to control our lives... first in what we drink, eat, and care for our bodies... and now in what we say, read and hear.

You'd think that somewhere during the process of procuring a marriage certificate, they might have taken care of the restraining order:

A New York state man has been arrested for getting too close to his bride on their wedding day.

Timothy Cole quarreled with a wedding guest at a party Friday after wedding his ex-wife in Batavia, police said.

Officers knew the 45-year-old Cole from previous arrests and realized his bride had an order of protection against him. Cole was charged with first-degree criminal contempt, a felony, and ordered jailed without bail.

Of course, had they actually been able to go through with the wedding, they might have been arrested for having sex like this couple was:

A British man has been banned from visiting his girlfriend’s home after neighbors complained about noisy sex, a local official said Thursday.

A court barred Adam Hinton, 32, from being within 110 yards of his 29-year-old girlfriend Kerry Norris’ apartment, Brighton and Hove City Council spokesman Mike Taggart said.

Residents of Norris’s publicly owned home had been complaining since 2006 about thumping music, banging headboards and screamed obscenities, Taggart said.

I don't understand the complaint... you mean there's another way?  And as Owen points out, the NHS has been encouraging couples to get it on for their health.  Is there anywhere that the government won't stick it's big fat ugly nose?

New York city has decided that they want to photograph and scan every vehicle that enters Manhattan:

The Police Department is working on a plan to track every vehicle that enters Manhattan to strengthen the city’s guard against a potential terror attack, the department’s chief spokesman said.

The proposal — called Operation Sentinel — relies on integrating layers of technologies, some that are still being perfected. It calls for photographing, and scanning the license plates of, cars and trucks at all bridges and tunnels and using sensors to detect the presence of radioactivity.

Data on each vehicle — its time-stamped image, license plate imprint and radiological signature — would be sent to a command center in Lower Manhattan, where it would be indexed and stored for at least a month as part of a broad security plan that emphasizes protecting the city’s financial district, the spokesman, Paul J. Browne, said. If it were not linked to a suspicious vehicle or a law enforcement investigation, it would be eliminated, he said.

I'm guessing that not that long after this system is put into place, the New York Transit Authority will propose a new toll system on vehicles coming and going into Manhattan... but that's just a crazy guess.  As for how safe this will make the city, we all know the answer is that it will actually decrease safety by flooding police with more information than they can do anything about, and create false positives that will take manpower away from methods that can actually produce leads.

But hey... everybody enjoys a good Security Theater show right?

More from the files of "Government is here to fix the problem that it caused for you"... we have Maureen Busalacchi, who advocates for Smoke Free Wisconsin writing for the Capital Times:

A gallon of gas is $4. Grocery bills are rising. And there are reports that by the holidays, the cost of many food staples will be through the roof. No matter how you slice it, the cost-of-living increase is pushing most of us to look for ways to tighten the belt.
...
At more than $5 per pack, a pack-a-day smoker is sending nearly $2,000 up in smoke annually. That's the equivalent of 500 gallons of gas or about six months of groceries for some families. And that doesn't take into account the money that smokers likely are forking out for additional out-of-pocket health care costs and other expenditures that are a direct result of their habit.
...
Like our neighboring states, Wisconsin needs a comprehensive statewide smoke-free law in place to save lives and money.

Let's sum up here.  The only reason that cigarettes are $5 a pack in the first place is due mostly to state and federal taxes on them, which artificially increase the price.  Those taxes by the way are fully supported by Smoke Free Wisconsin.  So... first the group artifically jacks up the price on cigarettes in an effort to take more money out of your pocket, then they talk about how much they feel your pain, and suggest that you quit smoking in order to allay yourself of the burden of paying for such an expensive product.

That sounds an awful lot like a gang member who smashes in your face for coming to the wrong neighborhood, and then offers to throw you back into the right neighborhood so he doesn't have to beat the crap out of you again.  Feel comforted yet?

That's essentially what ethanol is all about.  In an effort to maybe (though not likely) reduce the effects of global warming (which may or may not be man made) and potentially save lives some time in the future, we are going to for sure kill people today.  I hope they don't mind:

Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75% - far more than previously estimated - according to a confidential World Bank report obtained by the Guardian.

The damning unpublished assessment is based on the most detailed analysis of the crisis so far, carried out by an internationally-respected economist at global financial body.

The figure emphatically contradicts the US government's claims that plant-derived fuels contribute less than 3% to food-price rises. It will add to pressure on governments in Washington and across Europe, which have turned to plant-derived fuels to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and reduce their dependence on imported oil.
...
Rising food prices have pushed 100m people worldwide below the poverty line, estimates the World Bank, and have sparked riots from Bangladesh to Egypt. Government ministers here have described higher food and fuel prices as "the first real economic crisis of globalisation".

I've talked about ethanol as murder for the benefit of farmers before.

Pheisty is going after John McCain and his latest fund raising effort:

I’m here to say that I don’t give a damn about my country if my country doesn’t respect my personal liberty and freedom.  What good is American patriotism if it leaves out the entire reason why we should be patriotic in the first place?  I’m sure that there are many patriots in Iran, just as there were many ‘patriots’ in Communist Russia, Imperial Japan, and Nazi Germany.  America’s patriotism is unique because it is based upon the freedom of the individual, and the inherent rights of human beings.  Patriotism itself is not an admirable quality unless it is based upon individual rights.

Of course, John McCain and Barack Obama are both making a big push for national service... though I'd say John McCain is actually being a lot more forward about it:

The one big exception to this trend is AmeriCorps, the program of national service begun by President Bill Clinton. Since 1994, more than 200,000 Americans have served one-to-two-year stints in AmeriCorps, tutoring school children, building low-income housing, or helping flood-ravaged communities. AmeriCorps members receive a small stipend and $4,725 in college aid for their service. But the real draw is the chance to have an adventure and accomplish something important. And AmeriCorps' achievements are indeed impressive: thousands of homes constructed; hundreds of thousands of senior citizens assisted to live independently in their own homes; millions of children taught, tutored, or mentored.
...
If we are to have a resurgence of patriotic service in this country, then programs like AmeriCorps must be expanded and changed in ways that inspire the nation. There should be more focus on meeting national goals and on making short-term service, both civilian and military, a rite of passage for young Americans.
...
In the past, it has been a rite of passage for our nation's leaders to serve in the armed forces. Today, fewer and fewer of my congressional colleagues know from experience the realities of military life. The decline of the citizen-soldier is not healthy for a democracy. While it is not currently politically practical to revive the draft, it is important to find better incentives and opportunities for more young Americans to choose service in the military, if not for a career, then at least for a limited period of time.

Not to be left behind, Obama recent unveiled similar proposals, though in far less concrete ways... not that this is surprising:

Sen. Barack Obama on Wednesday unveiled a plan to create volunteer and service opportunities to help tackle some of the nation's most pressing issues, part of his weeklong focus on patriotism and national service.

"This won't be a call issued in one speech or one program — I want this to be a central cause of my presidency," Obama said in a speech at the University of Colorado in Colorado Springs.

"We will ask Americans to serve. We will create new opportunities for Americans to serve. And we will direct that service to our most pressing national challenges."

Though he seems to waffle a bit on whether this is truly voluntary, for he has declared:

[L]oving your country shouldn't just mean watching fireworks on the Fourth of July. Loving your country must mean accepting your responsibility to do your part to change it.
...
[P]atriotism must, if it is to mean anything, involve the willingness to sacrifice - to give up something we value on behalf of a larger cause.
...
For the rest of us - for those of us not in uniform or without loved ones in the military - the call to sacrifice for the country's greater good remains an imperative of citizenship.

It's like I'm reading Heinlein all over again.  McCain's jab at those who have not served in the military is especially interesting... as if he is declaring that a requirement of elected office is military service.  It's also a rite of passage... as if people who have not served are somehow less mature and not entered an important phase of life yet.  Obama is no better.  You must give up something for a larger cause... but he's the only one who can tell you which cause is large enough.  Starting a small business from scratch, or simply raising and educating a family isn't big enough.  No... you must do something of his choosing as well.

While they warm the cockles of many people's hearts... these are all horrible ideas for those of us who value limited government (and that should be all of us).  Not to be satisfied with taking our money from us and spending it on whatever whim and social experiment they see fit so I have less for my family, they now want to take my time.  And just like this incredible taxing juggernaut has become self sustaining, can you imagine what would happen if the government had at it's disposal a cheap work force like this?  They'd be dying to create more and more projects that they could implement.

While these ideas seem to be based on voluntary service, there are many in Congress who at different points in times have tried to pass laws creating schemes like this that are required by law.  Even McCain prefaces one of this statements by saying "while it's not politically practical to revive the draft".  Not that it's a bad idea... it's simply not politically practical.  Translation?  He wants to bring back the draft.

One of the great advantages of an all volunteer military is the idea of the re-enlistment veto.  When a country has at its disposal a force of people who have no choice but to be there, there is less incentive to be careful with how they are used.  Training tends to be worse, and they are treated as more disposable.  When you have to worry about re-enlistment, that is yet another check on the power of government.  Can you imagine the outlandish projects that would be invented for Ameri-Corps if there were a readymade work force for Uncle Sam?

Get out your check book... along with your pick and shovel.

This year's award for my hypocritical statements regarding the Constitution goes to... none other than our own Russ Feingold, who recently stated in this Op Ed:

We can defend our country from terrorists while at the same time protecting the rights and freedoms outlined in the Constitution.

Of course, I would suggest the following statement is also true Russ:

We can have free and fair election campaigns while at the same time protecting the rights and freedoms outlined in the Constitution.

Of course when it comes to that idea, you all of a sudden have a real problem with the Constitution.  Luckily as time as worn on, more and more of you stupid law has been struck down.

And for the record, I actually agree with Russ about FISA.