And I can not help wondering if you get arrested if you run your vessel
aground before you check with Customs :-)

Why bother worrying? It's far easier to just flail the hype on a newsgroup
instead. Yeesh.

What hype?

"Bill Kearney" wrote in message
t...
And I can not help wondering if you get arrested if you run your vessel
aground before you check with Customs :-)

Why bother worrying? It's far easier to just flail the hype on a
newsgroup
instead. Yeesh.

The whole notion that it's somehow any sort of realistic risk. Sure,
there's all sorts of things that "could go wrong" but in reality they very
seldom do. Seems it's just fashionable lately to scream like Chicken Little
about so-called risks because of increased security procedures. I find it
rather tiresome.

"claus" wrote in message
. ..
What hype?

"Bill Kearney" wrote in message
t...
And I can not help wondering if you get arrested if you run your vessel
aground before you check with Customs :-)

Why bother worrying? It's far easier to just flail the hype on a
newsgroup
instead. Yeesh.

The whole notion that just because it did not happen to the OP, then it
will not happen and is a "Chicken Little" type concern is what is
ridiculous. With the amount of sea traffic, the problem the OP
identified most certainly *will* happen. I see nothing "Chicken
Little"ish about his post.

It seems to me that being a "Chicken Little" is not the danger here.
Being a Sheep is the danger. Unfortunately, there are a lot of Sheep
in our society. The only time the Sheep exhibit any semblance of
courage is when they "flail" a person with the courage to stand up and
speak out about a government run amok.

Voting, political contributions and writing to our congressional
representatives are not the only ways we influence our government. One
way we influence our government is exactly what the OP did. We co-opt
other people in government. The OP talked with someone else in
government (a CG officer) about the problem he experienced and the
unreasonableness of the government's policy. That sort of grass roots
feedback is exceedingly important in guiding our government. (Yes.
That's right. Just as our Constitution says, our government is ruled
by us. It is our responsibility to guide and control it. Daily. Even
minute by minute.)

The other thing the OP did right is exactly what you "flail". He
discussed the problem he found with other citizens. With us. Yep.
That's right. (Again.) It is our responsibility to discuss our
government among ourselves.

I applaud the OP for having both the courage and the integrity to do
his duty. (While being completely on-topic for the NG, I should add.)


Bill Kearney wrote:
The whole notion that it's somehow any sort of realistic risk. Sure,
there's all sorts of things that "could go wrong" but in reality they very
seldom do. Seems it's just fashionable lately to scream like Chicken Little
about so-called risks because of increased security procedures. I find it
rather tiresome.

"claus" wrote in message
. ..
What hype?

"Bill Kearney" wrote in message
t...
And I can not help wondering if you get arrested if you run your vessel
aground before you check with Customs :-)

Why bother worrying? It's far easier to just flail the hype on a
newsgroup
instead. Yeesh.

Bill Kearney wrote:
The whole notion that it's somehow any sort of realistic risk. Sure,
there's all sorts of things that "could go wrong"


So you acknowledge a real increase in
risk . . .


but in reality they very
seldom do.


meaning you believe the risks are lower
(i.e., more seldom) than others believe
them to be?


Seems it's just fashionable lately to
scream like Chicken Little
about so-called risks because of increased security procedures. I find it
rather tiresome.

And therefore hearing others espouse
different assessments of risk than those
you hold is rather tiresome to you and
you would rather they either adopt your
risk assessments or simply remain silent?

Thank you for sharing that with us, Bill.





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 08:22:59 -0400, Bill Kearney wrote:

The whole notion that it's somehow any sort of realistic risk. Sure,
there's all sorts of things that "could go wrong" but in reality they very
seldom do. Seems it's just fashionable lately to scream like Chicken
Little about so-called risks because of increased security procedures. I
find it rather tiresome.

Is the trampling of your constitutional rights by Bush II et al a
"tiresome" topic too Bill? Nevermind. Just shove your head back in that
sunless little hole and feel safe from scary terrorist types, whoever
they might be. Been to the loosechange site?

In due respect, at this time of year dense fog banks do occur quite suddenly
around the San Juan islands.

The point I was trying to make was simply that a good sailor must always
repeat always keep the safety of his vessel and crew first and foremost,
irrespective of bureaucratic rules. And if you read my posting, the local
Coast Guard crew confirmed the safety first rule.

You are of course free to do whatever you wish to do - and in your case I
wonder what you would do in the situation I described.


"Bill Kearney" wrote in message
...
The whole notion that it's somehow any sort of realistic risk. Sure,
there's all sorts of things that "could go wrong" but in reality they very
seldom do. Seems it's just fashionable lately to scream like Chicken
Little
about so-called risks because of increased security procedures. I find it
rather tiresome.

"claus" wrote in message
. ..
What hype?

"Bill Kearney" wrote in message
t...
And I can not help wondering if you get arrested if you run your
vessel
aground before you check with Customs :-)

Why bother worrying? It's far easier to just flail the hype on a
newsgroup
instead. Yeesh.

You are of course free to do whatever you wish to do - and in your case I
wonder what you would do in the situation I described.

Just like the Coasties said, take whatever measures are best to maintain the
safety of the passengers and vessel. Like any other time safety conflicts
with regulations I'll take the risk of being ALIVE for the bureaucratic
untangling. And without hyping the so-called 'risk'.

It's not about being sheep, by any stretch, it's about balance. Being free
to travel, accepting the overlapping issues. Being free to speak without
being silenced by insults. Being responsible to call those flailing hype to
task. But hey, feel free to be cowering assholes, it's a talent a good
number of you seem to have honed to a fine edge.

This conundrum has come up in aviation as well. The cases there have
been very simple and the same principle will probably be applied to
boat border crossings.

The FAA says, "Put safety first or we take your license."

Customs says, "Put customs clearance first or we fine you $5000."

Two different agencies, two different agendas, two different penalty
structures. The great thing about this being a free country is that
we get to choose which horn to get gored by.

The nice thing about the USCG being the gatekeepers is that they have
an institutional bias towards safety first. Once customs gets
involved, or perhaps someone in the USCG that came up post 911, you'll
probably get screwed whatever you do.

Custom's attitude will be, "What, you didn't listen to the weather
report and assure yourself that you could complete the trip to the
port of entry? That's what the $5000 fine is for, to make you more
careful."

--

Roger Long