California is going broke, and will soon be sending out IOU's instead of checks.  At the same time, auto sales are dismal, and car manufacturers could use all the help they can get to keep prices down... so what does California decide to do with its spare time?  They passed this:

California has become the first state to require that all new cars sold after 2012 have windshields that block the sun to cool vehicles, increase fuel efficiency and cut greenhouse gases.

The regulation, approved yesterday by the state Air Resources Control Board, says that automakers must prevent 45% of the sun's total heat-producing energy from entering the car, and that the glass must block at least half that energy, the San Francisco Chronicle reports.

The requirement rises to 60% in 2016, though car makers can use alternate methods to achieve that mark.

Basically, California just mandated that all cars wear sun glasses... because they want their cars to be the hippest... or coolest if you prefer... in the country.  Words fail me sometimes.

A little birdie has told me that State Representative Molepske (D) is passing a round a bill (1478) looking for co-sponsors.  It is entitled "Restrictions and Limitations on Implementation of the Federal REAL ID Act".  There are already 11 states which have passed laws barring implementation of Real ID in their respective states, and at least 20 others with legislation pending on the matter.

If enough states rise up and resist the Federal Government's unconstitutional push into a matter which is clearly a state matter, then its quite possible they will decide to repeal the act, rather than risk losing in a court battle and setting a precedent.

Call your state representative and tell them to get on board.  For a summary on why Real ID will make us less secure from terrorists and identity thieves, please check out this earlier post, as well as this excellent article from security expert Bruce Schneier.

Perhaps you recall when Jay, of Folkbum's Rambles & Rants, declared that he would renounce the Democratic party and move to Mexico if the fairness doctrine was introduced:

Nick, if Chuck Schumer introduces a fairness doctrine bill, I will renounce the party and move to Mexico. FOX News bullied him into his comments, and he has--how to put it delicately--zero pull with the Obama administration even if he wanted to change the law.

A couple of months ago, we already had one member of Congress, an Anna Eshoo, say that she was interested in bringing it back, which I blogged about at the time.  Now we have a Senate Democrat, Debbie Stabenow, talking very seriously about it as well:

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) told nationally syndicated talk host Bill Press this morning that the recent flips of liberal Talk stations in several markets were a "disservice to the public."

Stabenow said that, in the day of the Fairness Doctrine, "you had to have balance," and continued, "I think something that requires that in a market with owners that have multiple stations that they have got to have balance -- there has to be some community interest -- balance, you know, standard that says both sides have to be heard."

Stabenow told Press that the airwaves are "dominated by one view" that "overwhelms people's opinions -- and, unfortunately, incorrectly," and said that "right-wing conservative talk hosts" are "trying to make people angry and saying all kinds of things that aren't true and so on."

When Press asked if it is time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, Stabenow responded, "I think it's absolutely time to pass a standard." To Press' inquiry as to whether she will push for hearings in the Seante "to bring these owners in and hold them accountable," Stabenow replied, "I have already had some discussions with colleagues, and, you know, I feel like that's going to happen. Yep."

Thanks to the ever insightful wheel chair bound blogger for the link.  Looks like Jay is one step closer to learning what it's like to only drink bottled water.  It's not that bad though... Ally and I loved Playa del Carmen.

My friend John Washburn says that if you want to know what a law does, simply look at it's title, and it will do the opposite.  Some good examples are the fact that "No Child Left Behind" leaves behind children, and that the "Help America Vote Act" makes it harder for people to vote.  Add to the growing list is the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act which really doesn't make products any safer, but does put small businesses out of business, and now could jeopardize the secondhand clothing and toy industry.  Joey, at Pheisty Blog, was on a great roll a couple weeks ago when she posted about one particular aspect of this law:

Congress, in its impeccable wisdom, effectively voted last year to shut down the children’s resale clothing business via the “Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008.” Not a soul in the House dared to vote against “children’s safety,” proving many in the Congressional cesspool of counter-productivity neglect to read legislation before voting. (I’ll cut a break for the 25 who abstained, as they potentially didn’t vote because they hadn’t an opportunity to read the bill.)

The act requires lead testing of all products sold for children aged twelve and under, including but not limited to clothing and toys, regardless of the date of manufacturing and the high improbability of lead in the clothing, particularly that manufactured domestically. Goodwill, other thrift stores, and one-person shops reselling new and used children’s clothing, making a couple dollars per item, would have to forgo a year’s worth of profit to fund third-party testing services, essentially putting most out of business. Further, as I understand it, the testing requires the destruction of an individual unit out of a batch, and would therefore not work for unique items.

Taking effect February 10, 2009, this ex post facto regulatory taking comes precisely at a time when lower-income and newly unemployed parents most need inexpensive children’s clothing and the dollars they receive from selling or consigning their children’s briefly used items.

While clothing is one of the few areas in which the market demands recycling, stores with existing, untested merchandise will have to opt for sending truckloads of perfectly good clothes to the landfill. And parents who purchased that expensive special occasion dress with plans to resell it after one wear are simply out the money. Not even Goodwill can take it now.

Joey then got an update via Herb Kohl stating that the Consumer Product Safety Commission has "clarified" the law and said that secondhand goods are exempt.  What is unclear from that letter is whether the law actually makes them exempt, or whether the CPSC is simply going to refrain from going after second hand stores.  If it's the latter, then the CPSC could simply change their mind at any time, which is clearly unacceptable.  However, just because they are exempt from testing, doesn't leave them out of the woods:

Could it get worse? Yes, it could. Contrary to some reports, thrift and secondhand stores are not exempt from the law. Although (unlike creators of new goods) they aren't obliged to test the items they stock, they are exposed to liability and fines if any goods on their shelves (or a component button, bolt, binding, etc.) are found to test above the (very low) thresholds being phased in.

Nor does it get them off the hook to say an older product's noncompliance with the new standards wasn't something they knew or should have known about (let alone to say anyone was harmed; the whole controversy from start to finish has gone on with precious little showing of real-world harm to American kids from most of the goods being banned).

Thrift store managers, often volunteers themselves, have no way to guess whether every grommet or zipper on a kids' jacket or ink on an old jigsaw puzzle box or some plastic component of Mom's old roller skates would pass muster.

"The reality is that all this stuff will be dumped in the landfill," predicted Adele Meyer, executive director of the National Association of Resale and Thrift Shops. Among the biggest losers if that happens: poorer parents who might start having to buy kids' winter coats new at $30 rather than used at $5 or $10.

So while many small toy manufacturers in the U.S. will likely go out of business because they can't afford the new, very expensive, testing in a relatively low margin marketplace, secondhand sellers may go out of business, or simply trash plenty of perfectly good products because they can't afford the liability.  All this makes it harsh on many people, as the economy worsens, because people depend on second hand goods to make ends meat... not only to buy when they can't afford new, but also to sell what they no longer need.

It should be noted that every Representative and Senator from Wisconsin voted Yes for this bill.  In fact, the only Nay in the House came from Ron Paul.

I'm sure if you looked through the records of most state legislatures, and even GovTrack for Congress, you'd probably find a bill like this most every year... they just don't usually get far enough to make the news.  Yet I'm still always amazed at the complete idiocy... stupidity... @#$*&^#!! of some people in our government.  Free speech means just that... even in South Carolina.  Suck it up fuckers.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:

SECTION 1. Article 3, Chapter 15, Title 16 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"Section 16-15-370. (A) It is unlawful for a person in a public forum or place of public accommodation wilfully and knowingly to publish orally or in writing, exhibit, or otherwise make available material containing words, language, or actions of a profane, vulgar, lewd, lascivious, or indecent nature.

(B) A person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than five thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

This hasn't passed yet, and hopefully it never will.  Via Slashdot.

So as the end of the year approaches, it's not uncommon for folks, even aspiring political pundits like me, to look back on the year, and try to tie up some loose ends and pull together some memorable moments.  But 2008 was such a great year, that I think it justifies having more than just one Year in Review post.  So I'm going to be reviewing the year from all sorts of perspectives, and am going to start out by reviewing this year in bans... with the help of Reason TV.

Yet another Democratic member of Congress is calling for the return of the Fairness Doctrine:

Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto, said Monday she will work to restore the Fairness Doctrine and have it apply to cable and satellite programming as well as radio and TV.

"I'll work on bringing it back. I still believe in it," Eshoo told the Daily Post in Palo Alto.

The Fairness Doctrine required TV and radio stations to balance opposing points of view. It meant that those who disagreed with the political slant of a commentator were entitled to free air time to give contrasting points of view, usually in the same time slot as the original broadcast.
The doctrine was repealed by the Reagan administration's Federal Communications Commission in 1987, and a year later, Rush Limbaugh's show went national, ushering in a new form of AM radio. 
...
Eshoo said she would recommend the doctrine be applied not only to radio and TV broadcasts, but also to cable and satellite services.

"It should and will affect everyone," she said.

So now it's not just about bringing fairness to the supposed "public airwaves", but to the private ones as well.  Jay Bullock as you might recall, blogged not all that long ago about how Republicans are in a panic over this for no good reason.  When some bloggers, including myself, mentioned how Chuck Schumer talked about bringing it back, Jay said:

Nick, if Chuck Schumer introduces a fairness doctrine bill, I will renounce the party and move to Mexico. FOX News bullied him into his comments, and he has--how to put it delicately--zero pull with the Obama administration even if he wanted to change the law.

In all fairness to Jay, Chuck still hasn't introduced the bill, and there is no evidence that Congresswoman Eshoo has any more pull with the Obama administration than Schumer does, so I won't make him renounce his party (but he's free to do so anyway if he'd like).  But let's not pretend that there aren't plenty of people in Washington who would like to see this happen in one form or another, or wouldn't like to use the threat of the fairness doctrine to bully broadcast media into other concessions.

South Milwaukee, in order to distance itself from it's neighbor to the north, has passed a new ordinance:

The South Milwaukee Common Council Tuesday passed an ordinance preventing the city from ordering private businesses to give employees certain pay or benefits.

The action came after City of Milwaukee voters passed a referendum Nov. 4 requiring private employers to provide employees with paid sick days. Under the new ordinance, such a referendum will be impossible in South Milwaukee.

Don't get me wrong, I think the sick pay ordinance is a bad, bad, very bad idea.  But something about what South Milwaukee did seems wrong to me.  This ordinance, passed by the Common Council, bars the people as a whole from petitioning their government en masse.  That seems backwards to me.  A small set of elected representatives shouldn't be able to limit the power of the majority (who elected them) to act by referrendum like that.  Only the opposite should be possible.

In other words, the people as a whole ought to be able to limit the power of their representatives to act, but the elected representatives shouldn't be allowed to limit the ways that the people can petition them.

Does anyone know... since the direct legislation statute used to pass the Milwaukee sick pay ordinance is actually a state law, can the common council of a city overrule it's use?

Now that Bush and Cheney are both officially lame ducks, its now possible for them to go around the interview circuit and talk more candidly about their administration, and what they think the future holds.  In Bush's case, he's actully been fairly open to the idea that he was not right about a lot of things, even though he exuded complete certainty.  This of course bothers may Republicans.  Yesterday, Dick Cheney had an interview with Rush Limbaugh, where among other things, he talked about what Obama may or may not do:

"My guess is, once they get here and they're faced with the same problems we deal with every day, that they will appreciate some of the things we've put in place," Cheney says, according to a White House transcript. "We did not exceed our constitutional authority, as some have suggested, but we -- the president believes, I believe very deeply, in a strong executive, and I think that's essential in this day and age. And I think the Obama administration is not likely to cede that authority back to the Congress. I think they'll find that given a challenge they face, they'll need all the authority they can muster."

I think that Cheney is correct in saying that the Obama Administration will not give back any power that Bush stole for the White House.  Presidents never give back power.  In fact, Obama's vote on the FISA act several months ago.  He had a good sense he would win the Presidency, and so he wanted to make sure he had every power available, even though many Democrats decried the whole thing.  Many of the other campaign promises that Obama made are also being scaled back right now, before he's even taken office.  His promises on withdrawing from Iraq are quickly morphing to sound more like McCain's, as well as some of his tax promises.  So I have no doubt in my mind, that Obama will hold tight to everything Bush took.

Where Cheney is absolutely wrong, is in his statement that everything they did was with Constitutional bounds.  You can believe in a strong executive all you want, but the reality is that our Consitution does not allow for the type of strong executive that Bush made himself into (with the help of many Presidents along the way).  And for him to say "cede authority back to Congress" would imply that there was authority taken from Congress... something which the Constitution hardly allows for.

New Hampshire has officially gone off the deep end, and has decided to "save money" by suspending jury trials for a month... seriously:

The Superior Court system in New Hampshire will take the unusual step of halting jury trials for a month early next year because of a widening state budget crisis.

John Broderick, the state’s chief justice, said suspending trials was essential to avoid layoffs in the judicial system, which has already cut $2.7 million from its budget.

The measure will save about $73,000, the monthly amount spent on stipends for jurors. But the head of an association representing civil trial lawyers said it could have a harsh impact on plaintiffs, many of whom have already waited years for a judgment in their case.
...
The clerks of court in New Hampshire’s largest counties, Hillsborough and Rockingham, said they were rescheduling 179 criminal and civil trials planned for February or March.

And will all those people sitting in jail waiting for their cases to be heard be let free on their own recognizance?  Of course not.  But hey, its not like you have a right to a speedy trial or anything... oh wait... you do!

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Of course, the state of New Hampshire spends money from the taxpayer doing literally thousands of things that are not necessary for the state to do.  But when it comes to cutting services, instead of getting rid of school lunches, or any one of a thousand things that are not constitutionally guaranteed or necessary, they decide to suspend the right to a jury trial.  That is outrageous!

Trial by jury is one of the functions that everyone agrees should be handled by the state.  To hold potentially innocent people for any period longer than required, in limbo, is criminal in and of itself.

Last night, the House voted to pass the bailout bill of the Big 2.5. Essentially what it does is to provde for "bridge loans" to be made available from funds already made available for other purposes. Some of the money will be coming from the $700 billion bailout (which is not being used to buy illiquid assets any more) and some of the money is coming from a bill having to do with alternative energy. It also creates a "car czar" which will supervise the dispersement of the loans, and also make sure that the car companies are restructuring properly. The bill also requires that the "car czar" is to receive warrants to receive nonvoting or preferred stock in any car company which accepts funds. In other words, more partial nationalization. Some would argue that it's not true nationalization because it's non voting stock... but let's be honest here. Even without the warrants, the "car czar" is going to wield enormous influence over these companies in exchange for the money they will receive. We're nationalizing.

Read on to find out how this will actually harm the people that Paul Ryan thinks he's protecting.

75 years ago today, the 21st Amendment to the Constitution was ratified, which repealed the 18th Amendment... rolling back the terrible practice of prohibition.  In recognition of this, many members of Congress are celebrating repeal day and created this Resolution patting themselves on the back.  It reads in part:

Whereas prior to the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, which established Prohibition in the United States, abuses and insufficient regulation resulted in irresponsible overconsumption of alcohol;

Whereas passage of the 18th Amendment, which prohibited 'the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors' in the United States, resulted in a dramatic increase in illegal activity, including unsafe black market alcohol production, organized crime, and noncompliance with alcohol laws;

Whereas everything mentioned above also applies to our foolish War on Drugs^TM.  Everything that is said about alcohol prohibition applies to the Drug War.  It is dangerous folly, which has cost us trillions of dollars, destroyed many of our rights, makes innocent people subject to brutal police tactics, made drugs more dangerous and created black markets, and has done absolutely nothing to curb their use.

Yet the same people who are celebrating the 21st Amendment with a drink would never consider doing anything to stop the War on Drugs^TM.  So please, do have a drink tonight, and then think about the costs incurred when we attempt to prohibit something which is at it's core, is a personal vice.

Eminent Domain is one of those things that tend to get me really riled up.  One of the most important rights declared in the Constitution is that you shall not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.  Included in that 5th Amendment guarantee is that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.  The process of Eminent Domain is where this private property is taken, for supposedly public uses.  However, over the years, the definition of "public use" has become distorted so much as to have no meaning whatsoever.

One of the most egregious abuses of this power is currently occurring in New York, by Columbia University.  Columbia University, a bastion of liberal ethics and ivory tower justice, would like to expand it's campus.  However, instead of buying that land from it's neighbors for market value, Columbia would rather the State of New York take the land, and then give it to Columbia through Eminent Domain.  While the owners would be compensated somewhat, the process of Eminent Domain itself lowers land value (since private owners are unwilling to buy land that will be taken anyway), and so just compensation never actually occurs through Eminent Domain.  The result?  Columbia University would get the new land for a bargain, whether the current owners want to sell to them or not.

Unfortunately for Columbia, in order for any of this to occur, the neighborhood has to first be declared "blighted".  Even more of a problem for Columbia University is that the neighborhood was actually in very good condition.  I say was because over time, Columbia has slowly been buying up some of the land that it could, so that it could keep the properties vacant, and in disrepair.  The sole reason for doing so, it would seem, is to artificially create the blight that it needs to get the rest of the land through Eminent Domain:

Nick Sprayregen stands on the corner of 130th and Broadway pointing out the disarray. What was once a neighborhood gas station is now abandoned, its yard closed off by a chain-link fence topped with a spiral of razor wire. Inside the fence, debris is casually strewn about. Outside, the sidewalk is littered with broken glass. A derelict shopping cart is propped against the building, which itself is marked with stray graffiti. An electrical box on the side of the building has been pried open. Some of the wiring has been ripped out; what remains is exposed to the elements. This rundown property is owned by Columbia University. In fact, the Ivy League school owns 70 percent of the surrounding area--known as Manhattanville--much of which is in similarly dilapidated condition.

It wasn't always this way. Manhattanville was never trendy, but it was once an active neighborhood full of light industry--auto shops, warehouses, and the like. But as Columbia began buying up the neighborhood, businesses left. Eighteen buildings in Manhattanville are now at least 50 percent vacant; Columbia owns 17 of them and they were nearly all fully occupied before Columbia acquired them. As a study put together by Sprayregen's lawyer explains, "Each became vacant only after, or immediately prior to Columbia's acquisition or assumption of control." And the university's actions seem designed to keep them vacant.

The building at 3251 Broadway, for example, was home to six auto repair businesses, an auto parts store, a woodwork restoration business, and a travel agency before Columbia acquired it. In 2005, Columbia refused to renew leases on the upper floors, citing a dangerous elevator. The university then erected sidewalk sheds in front of the building, hiding the ground-floor storefronts, claiming that there was a problem with the building's façade. But they have never initiated any repairs. The businesses emptied out of 3251 Broadway, and today the building stands vacant except for a small auto parts store on the ground floor. The unsightly sidewalk sheds still hulk over the front doors. Many of the buildings Columbia owns in Manhattanville have "For Rent" signs. Yet as Sprayregen's lawyer notes, "Calls to numbers listed on signs on Columbia-owned buildings advertising space for rent could never reach a live person and messages were never returned."

Quite the racket if you ask me.  First Columbia buys up some land and keeps it in poor condition, then uses it's poor building management as a reason to be given more land.  When did we decide that slum lords should be rewarded?  You can read more about this in a separate article in the Wall Street Journal as well.  Via Reason.

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.