To: WSFAlist at keithlynch.net
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 02:24:04 -0400
Subject: [WSFA] Re: going to Worldcon
From: ronkean at juno.com
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>

On Sat, 10 Aug 2002 18:15:15 -0400 (EDT) "Keith F. Lynch"
<kfl at KeithLynch.net> writes:

> If I am stopped for not having "papers please" when I attempt to
> board
> at Union Station in two weeks, I will take Metro to Rockville, and
> attempt to board the same Amtrak train there.  And if I am stopped
> again, or if I can't reach Rockville in time (the timing will be
> tight), I will return to downtown DC, and try taking Greyhound.
>

Since there are no Amtrak stops between Union Station and Rockville, I
suppose the Amtrak train would get to Rockville much faster than would a
red line Metro train leaving Union Station at the same time.  But the
Amtrak train probably lingers in Rockville for some time, which would
provide some margin.  You would have to attempt to board the Amtrak train
at Union Station at least 15 minutes before it leaves, if possible, to be
reasonably sure of getting to Rockville in time, if that becomes
necessary.

But beyond that, it seems unlikely they would not ask for ID at Rockville
if they did so at Union Station.  A possible hitch with your plan is that
they might not honor a ticket for boarding at Union Station, at the
Rockville station, for some unfathomable bureaucratic reason.  You might
want to check that in advance.

Veering a bit off-topic, I am skeptical that a government-issued ID is
really required for domestic air travel, in the sense that one would not
be allowed to board simply for lack of ID.  Many people do not have a
government issued ID, e.g. young children and some adults who don't have
a driver's license and have never bothered to get a 'non-driver's
license'.  Common sense suggests that adults without ID would be allowed
to board after greater scrutiny, unless some other reason were found to
deny boarding, some reason which might apply equally well to someone with
ID.  Of course it would almost surely be a greater hassle to fly without
ID.  It would be interesting to know what an airline would say about the
matter.  It would be a good idea for someone planning to fly without ID
to inquire about it in advance, I would think, and it would also be a
good idea to allow plenty of extra time.

> At Union Station while waiting for the train to board so I could
> watch, I picked up a newspaper someone had left on their seat.  The
> Washington Post.  I glanced at the front page to make sure it was
> today's.
>
> I was bemused to see that it was tomorrow's.
>
> I wondered if I had fallen into an episode of "Early Edition"
> (which was about a man who gets tomorrow's paper, and spends all day
> trying to prevent disasters reported in it).

The Washington Post publishes an early edition of Sunday's paper on
Saturday.  The only difference is the 'A' section.

> Or, more mundanely, if I had
> somehow gotten confused and today really was Sunday the 11th.  I
> hoped not, since I had an event on Saturday evening I didn't want to
> miss.  I wasn't *completely* certain it was Saturday until I got home,
and
> logged into Panix, which assured me it was still Saturday.  I trust
> Panix.
>

I went to www.panix.com and did not see a date on the welcome page.  Do
you mean that you looked at ongoing discussion threads on Panix to see
what the participants' computers thought the date was?

> How fragile is one's grip on reality?  If everyone got together and
> pretended it was tomorrow, how much would you argue before you
> decided
> you were confused?

If literally everyone I could contact conspired to fool me into thinking
it was a day later than it really was, and if all commonly consulted
evidence of the date such as computer clocks and newspapers were
doctored, I would probably fall for the hoax, but I would devote
considerable thought in trying to figure out _how_ I had become confused
about the date.  It would be possible to confirm the correct date by
astronomical observations, assuming that one had a reliable ephemeris.
But if all newspapers could be doctored, then I suppose one's ephemeris
could be doctored also.  If I had noted the phase of the moon one night,
and then the next day was the victim of a hoax claiming it was one day
later than it in fact was, then I could perhaps confirm by looking at the
phase of the moon whether one or two days had passed since the last time
I looked at the moon.  But, if such observation showed that only one day
had passed, rather than two, it still would not clear up the doubt,
because after all I might also have been mistaken about which day it was
when I saw the moon 'last night', or perhaps I would doubt the validity
of my memory.

>  If everyone got together and pretended there
> was
> no such place as, say, Delaware, how much would it take to convince
> you that you were mistaken and they were right?
>

Presumably for the hoax everyone in Delaware would also deny that
Delaware exists, or has ever existed, and all evidence of Delaware's
existence would have been erased.  But, since I have lived in Delaware
for a while, and visited there many times, and seen many references to
Delaware in print, on maps, and in personal contacts, I would seriously
doubt my sanity when confronted with such a hoax, unlike the date hoax.

> More to the point of this message, if everyone started treating
> something you've always thought of as horribly wrong as being
> perfectly ok, would you go along with it?  Because that's how I've
> always felt about any requirement to carry government-issued travel
> papers while traveling within my own country.  I thought almost
> everyone else felt the same.  I feel like I've stepped into an evil
> parallel universe.  Perhaps the one in which Spock has a beard.  I
> don't know.
>

I see a distinction between being required to show papers for boarding a
plane or other common carrier, and being required to show papers for
travel per se.  And classic totalitarian regimes such as Nazi Germany and
the Soviet Union did not have an ID requirement for travel per se, but
rather a more general requirement that any citizen must produce ID upon
official request, at any place and any time, for any reason.  The Soviet
document was sometimes called an 'internal passport'.  Actually, many
countries which are not considered totalitarian, including Germany, have
such a requirement today.

I don't have a sense a sense of being in an evil parallel universe over
the air travel ID requirement, because there is an established history in
the U.S. of infringement of civil liberties in times of stress, compared
to more normal times.  The Alien and Sedition Acts, Lincoln's suspension
of Habeas Corpus, the Palmer raids, the Japanese-American interments, are
all examples.  To me it is not surprising that the average person is not
outraged by the air travel ID requirement, given 9-11.

The scary thing about an ID requirement for air travel is that implies
that the government has, or plans to have, a list of undesirables.
Otherwise, what use would there be in demanding ID?  The 9-11 hijackers
had ID.  A few years ago, a Libertarian I know took a vacation and
visited Russia.  While there he was summoned to the U.S. embassy, and
asked there 'you're a Libertarian, aren't you?'.  Apparently the intent
was to warn him about activities which might get him into trouble in
Russia, so the intent was apparently benign, but the clear implication is
that the federal government has a computerized list of Americans which
includes political affiliations.

Ron Kean

.

________________________________________________________________