U.S. Passport Primer: A Guide to the New Passport RegulationsWritten by Larry Denton
Thanks to new federal passport proposals, cost of a Caribbean cruise, a Cancun honeymoon, or a Vancouver theater weekend could be going up. The security-related changes, scheduled to take effect over next 2 1/2 years, will affect Americans who travel to Canada, Mexico, Bermuda, Panama and Caribbean. Previously, American travelers simply flashed a driver's license or birth certificate when returning from those destinations.
Beginning December 31, 2005, re-entry to U.S. from Caribbean, Bermuda, Central and South America will require a passport--$97 for adults, $82 for children under 16. On December 31, 2006 passport requirements will go into effect for all air and sea travel to or from Mexico and Canada. And on December 31, 2007, passports will be required for ALL air, sea, and land border crossings to or from United States.
A passport is an internationally recognized travel document that verifies identity and nationality of bearer. A valid U.S. passport is required to enter and leave most foreign countries. Only U.S. Department of State has authority to grant, issue or verify United States passports, and process can be arduous and time consuming.
Frequently asked questions about passports such as: "When should I apply?", "Do I have to apply in person?", "What should I do if my passport is lost or stolen?", "Does my baby need a passport?" Answers to these questions and hundreds of others can be found by searching Internet. Interesting tip--even your pet will need a passport to enter European Union.
To obtain a U.S. passport for first time, you need to go in person to one of 6,0000 designated passport application acceptance facilities nationwide, including many post offices, Federal and state courts, clerks of court, and a growing number of public libraries and public colleges and universities. For a list of offices closest to you, search by ZIP code on State Department website at http://www.iafdb.travel.state.gov.
The Possibilities for Anarchy (II)Written by Angelique van Engelen
Any chances for a country to be ruled by alternative rule will always be zero because -as many economists, philosophers and scientists claim- way various parts reality consist of interrelate is dominated by forces we won’t in a billion years have any chance of controling. An anarchist with aspirations to help build organizational structures not based on governing from above’s best bet is to get a clear picture of those areas of science that are leading way in terms of future progress.
In setting out to get any broad idea of what's driving our society’s progress, sciences open up a plethora of ideas for alternative ways governing reality. It is simply surprising what limited bearings these abundant ideas have on real life governments, business and any organised part of public life, given fact that many of them have been around for so long.
Talk of anarchization of structures that govern us is not new, yet it’s likely that we’ve become immune to it. To think anarchy has so far always boiled down to getting a pretty close idea of existing governing principles more than what they can be replaced with. Our tolerance levels for more general new ideas have also risen a lot due to rise of technology. So much so that we hardly are knocked over if someone supposes that doing away with governments altogether might suit us even better than adoption of another procedure based on true science.
Neither are alternative theories very much seen as subversive. Anyone with a subversive streak simply has to start shouting or display odd behavior and will still likely fail to be recognized as such. Even though naturally we sidestep systems that do not testify of authority from above as having any chance of being implemented, so long as you don't package subject with blatant “anti establishment’ labels, you have equal chances of getting as good a hearing as man who's proposing next major overhaul of national health system or so.
So in this sense, anarchy project is really rather simple. Compile ideas at random and start preaching them. Yet fact that none of us can imagine what a country is going to look like that's done away with government (history kindly doesn’t provide us with precedents) combined with fact that organising this is a real possibility is somehow again highly indicative again of state of play in developed world. It's anomaly of ‘Third World vs Developed World’ type. Poverty can't be simply reasoned away. We know that. But we’re less sure about subversives. Why? Because we don’t know at which levels they are active.
The shift in debate from real and tangible to a higher, almost metaphysical level, is something that many old time revolutionaries objected to but which modern anarchists simply take into their stride. The abstractization of reality somehow is objectionable when it comes to real life threatening situations like poverty in Africa and terrorist strikes on our cities, yet most anarchists, like mainstream, see fact that terrorists have forced us to take this portion of reality at face value not as a reason to abandon this domaine. To do so would be to abandon all options to make a difference, it is argued.
Political realities no longer are dialectical, but rather a viral ooze, infecting language and thought. The search for alternative ways governing reality is underway full swing and it it’s taking place without our knowledge in governments, business and any organised part of public life. Depending on one’s take on subject, it is not so much viability of chance that any given country will by choice adopt a system based on anarchy that is sought, but ideas surrounding this. Man’s ultimate strife is to master nature in a fully free and autonomous way. To gain any insight of where alternative ideas have a chance to find a solid base on par with ideas that are currently employed by governments, one simply needs to take a look at what’s hottest topic in philosophy of science. The arguments here likely shed most light on how we are likely to think about future in coming years. The talk in philosophy of science is yielding an overwhelming plethora range of ideas for our argument and almost serves as a microcosm for rest of world. Number one; we haven’t had by far enough time to find decisive answers as to whether there’ll ever be a theory that conclusively decides whether reality is deterministic - ie ruled by logic. This argument was hot when nano technology sprang to fore a few years ago and carved out a whole new dimension, making epistemology of determinism an even thornier and more multi-faceted issue.