Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
 

USA Today reports this morning that Homeland Security has ordered one
of its divisions, (the USCG) to define a plan to positively identify
boaters. The rationale is that small boats could be loaded with
explosives and used to
blow up military or commercial vessels, ala USS Cole. Until the USCG
presents its plan we don't know the details, but possible requirements
*could* include, at a minimum, carrying a national Boater ID card.
(Something the Administration seems to favor, based on its proposals
in several areas).

These programs tend to grow like Topsy. Once the "ID Card" gets the
camel nose under the tent, some bureaucrat on a 4-hour lunchbreak in
DC will get the bright idea..."Hey, if we require every boat to carry
a GPS transponder we'll need a new department with 50,000 employees
and 200 locations to track the movement of every boat on the water. I
can be appointed supervisor and get promoted from a GS(whatever) to a
grade where I'll make another $100k a year! We can require every
boater to buy a transponder, and put in a tax of $100 per boat per
year to support the monitoring!"

ID card?, maybe mandatory transponders?, perhaps eventually mandatory
GPS "chips" carried on the person 24/7 so everybody can be monitored
at all times wherever they go? If the 9-11 terrorists had a goal to
prfoundly change our way of life in America, it looks like they
succeeded. George Orwell was right, he just never anticipated the
government would be spying on us all by satellite.

At least it will be easy to know how the bad guys are. They will be
the folks
who don't carry the ID, don't use the transponder, and don't carry
their mandatory GPS personal tracking chip 24-7. Of course we won't
know *where* they are until it's too late.......so what's the real
difference between all of the potential government snooping and just
letting people live their lives with a modicum of privacy?

Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
 

On Oct 31, 12:28 pm, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 07:17:12 -0700, Chuck Gould

wrote:
USA Today reports this morning that Homeland Security has ordered one
of its divisions, (the USCG) to define a plan to positively identify
boaters. The rationale is that small boats could be loaded with
explosives and used to
blow up military or commercial vessels, ala USS Cole. Until the USCG
presents its plan we don't know the details, but possible requirements
*could* include, at a minimum, carrying a national Boater ID card.
(Something the Administration seems to favor, based on its proposals
in several areas).
Snipped

I'm a believer in a national ID card, whether it helps ID boaters or not.
Of course, many who are in favor of illegal immigration are opposed to
same.

Your rationale could easily be applied to boat or vehicle registration or
birth certificates.

Europeans don't leave home without their national ID. We should be doing
the same.

If the price of fuel keeps going up it won't be difficult to spot the
bad guys, they'll be the only ones out there!

Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
 

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 07:17:12 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

USA Today reports this morning that Homeland Security has ordered one
of its divisions, (the USCG) to define a plan to positively identify
boaters.

Old news - in fact, I posted something about this a couple of months
ago.

This is very problematic both in terms of concept and execution.

Ain't gonna happen.

Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
 

On Oct 31, 9:28?am, John H. wrote:


I'm a believer in a national ID card, whether it helps ID boaters or not.
Of course, many who are in favor of illegal immigration are opposed to
same.

Your rationale could easily be applied to boat or vehicle registration or
birth certificates.

Europeans don't leave home without their national ID. We should be doing
the same.


There would be some practical applications. We have a strident but
influential voice in our community who keeps demanding laws that would
"put landlords in jail who rent to illegal immigrants!" As a landlord,
I can say there a couple of problems with his plan.....first there is
no exiting law that makes it a crime to rent shelter to a person based
on their immigration status and secondly there is no workable way to
sort out who is a legal resident and who is not. The illegals don't
volunteer the fact that they swam across the Rio Grande last week, and
citizens don't routinely carry any document that identifies them as
such. I know for a fact that I will find myself in deep dog doo if I
just summarily begin denying apartments to people simply because they
"look Hispanic". (There are *plenty* of existing laws that address
that!) There are illegal immigrants from Canada, Europe, etc....and
lots of legal Hispanic Americans.

Overall, I'm opposed to to asking people to carry general ID cards.
First you need to carry one, then you need to show it along with your
registration card to vote, then merchants begin demanding it for major
transactions, then pretty soon you need to show it to get on a bus,
cross a state border, buy an aspirin, etc.........

And odd aspect of the discussion, IMO, centers on the fact that so
many people who seem willing to form a militia and rise up against the
FEDGOV before consenting to federal registry of their firearms
apparently have very little difficulty with registering their persons.
You may not be one of those people, JohnH- but I have met a fair
number.

While a federal boater ID card doesn't seem that aggregious, it can be
a first step toward oppressive federal regulation.

"Going fishing this weekend, John?"

"Naw, dammit. Some government flunky lost my application for a 3-day
navigation permit. *******s cashed my check for the $50 processing
fee, however. Looks like I'll be back on the water for a weekend in
another 45 days, assuming they don't lose the paperwork again."

Wherever that is, I don't want to live there. :-)

Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
 

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 08:58:37 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

secondly there is no workable way to
sort out who is a legal resident and who is not.

In a sense.

I don't know what you do, but when we rent, positive identification, a
credit check, valid bank account and positive work history are all
part of qualifying to rent one of ours.

While it dosen't keep one from renting to immigrants, legal or
otherwise, it cuts down on the possibility.

Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
 

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 08:48:09 -0700, Capt John
wrote:

On Oct 31, 12:28 pm, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 07:17:12 -0700, Chuck Gould

wrote:
USA Today reports this morning that Homeland Security has ordered one
of its divisions, (the USCG) to define a plan to positively identify
boaters. The rationale is that small boats could be loaded with
explosives and used to
blow up military or commercial vessels, ala USS Cole. Until the USCG
presents its plan we don't know the details, but possible requirements
*could* include, at a minimum, carrying a national Boater ID card.
(Something the Administration seems to favor, based on its proposals
in several areas).
Snipped

I'm a believer in a national ID card, whether it helps ID boaters or not.
Of course, many who are in favor of illegal immigration are opposed to
same.

Your rationale could easily be applied to boat or vehicle registration or
birth certificates.

Europeans don't leave home without their national ID. We should be doing
the same.

If the price of fuel keeps going up it won't be difficult to spot the
bad guys, they'll be the only ones out there!

ROTFL!!!

Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
 

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 07:17:12 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

USA Today reports this morning that Homeland Security has ordered one
of its divisions, (the USCG) to define a plan to positively identify
boaters. The rationale is that small boats could be loaded with
explosives and used to
blow up military or commercial vessels, ala USS Cole. Until the USCG
presents its plan we don't know the details, but possible requirements
*could* include, at a minimum, carrying a national Boater ID card.
(Something the Administration seems to favor, based on its proposals
in several areas).

Snipped

I'm a believer in a national ID card, whether it helps ID boaters or not.
Of course, many who are in favor of illegal immigration are opposed to
same.

Your rationale could easily be applied to boat or vehicle registration or
birth certificates.

Europeans don't leave home without their national ID. We should be doing
the same.

Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
 

On Oct 31, 9:13?am, wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 07:17:12 -0700, Chuck Gould

wrote:
USA Today reports this morning that Homeland Security has ordered one
of its divisions, (the USCG) to define a plan to positively identify
boaters. The rationale is that small boats could be loaded with
explosives and used to
blow up military or commercial vessels, ala USS Cole. Until the USCG
presents its plan we don't know the details, but possible requirements
*could* include, at a minimum, carrying a national Boater ID card.
(Something the Administration seems to favor, based on its proposals
in several areas).

I don't know where USA Today got their information, but the USCG
proposal specifically REJECTS creation of any additional or special
ID. They adamantly DO NOT want one. The idea is that any photo ID such
as a drivers license or state issued ID in lieu of a drivers license
would be all that is needed.

In a speech made in December of 2006, Admiral Thad Allen, ranking
admiral in charge of the USCG, specifically proposed instituting a
"national license" for pleasure boaters. The USCG has since made some
PR-type statements disavowing that proposal.

One of the challenges is that under existing law, a USCG boarding
officer cannot ask anybody aboard the boat for identification, but
only for documents identifying the boat.

Some additional insight on this issue:

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o.../Gov.Lacks.htm

Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
 

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Oct 31, 9:13?am, wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 07:17:12 -0700, Chuck Gould

wrote:
USA Today reports this morning that Homeland Security has ordered one
of its divisions, (the USCG) to define a plan to positively identify
boaters. The rationale is that small boats could be loaded with
explosives and used to
blow up military or commercial vessels, ala USS Cole. Until the USCG
presents its plan we don't know the details, but possible requirements
*could* include, at a minimum, carrying a national Boater ID card.
(Something the Administration seems to favor, based on its proposals
in several areas).

I don't know where USA Today got their information, but the USCG
proposal specifically REJECTS creation of any additional or special
ID. They adamantly DO NOT want one. The idea is that any photo ID such
as a drivers license or state issued ID in lieu of a drivers license
would be all that is needed.

In a speech made in December of 2006, Admiral Thad Allen, ranking
admiral in charge of the USCG, specifically proposed instituting a
"national license" for pleasure boaters. The USCG has since made some
PR-type statements disavowing that proposal.

One of the challenges is that under existing law, a USCG boarding
officer cannot ask anybody aboard the boat for identification, but
only for documents identifying the boat.

Some additional insight on this issue:

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o.../Gov.Lacks.htm

That's weird. I haven't read the link yet, but if the CG thinks a crime has
been committed, who are they supposed to call, who *IS* allowed to ask for
ID?

Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
 

On Oct 31, 9:07?am, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 08:58:37 -0700, Chuck Gould

wrote:
secondly there is no workable way to
sort out who is a legal resident and who is not.

In a sense.

I don't know what you do, but when we rent, positive identification, a
credit check, valid bank account and positive work history are all
part of qualifying to rent one of ours.

While it dosen't keep one from renting to immigrants, legal or
otherwise, it cuts down on the possibility.

We check ID, verify employment, and run a credit check as well.
It's possible to get a driver's license without being a citizen, most
of the illegals have a job of some kind, and it's pretty easy to
qualify for many types of credit. It would be tough for a guy who just
sneaked over the border last week to have enough stuff together, but
pretty easy for somebody who came across last year to have as many
credentials as a freshly graduated college student.

Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
 

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 08:58:37 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Oct 31, 9:28?am, John H. wrote:


I'm a believer in a national ID card, whether it helps ID boaters or not.
Of course, many who are in favor of illegal immigration are opposed to
same.

Your rationale could easily be applied to boat or vehicle registration or
birth certificates.

Europeans don't leave home without their national ID. We should be doing
the same.


There would be some practical applications. We have a strident but
influential voice in our community who keeps demanding laws that would
"put landlords in jail who rent to illegal immigrants!" As a landlord,
I can say there a couple of problems with his plan.....first there is
no exiting law that makes it a crime to rent shelter to a person based
on their immigration status and secondly there is no workable way to
sort out who is a legal resident and who is not. The illegals don't
volunteer the fact that they swam across the Rio Grande last week, and
citizens don't routinely carry any document that identifies them as
such. I know for a fact that I will find myself in deep dog doo if I
just summarily begin denying apartments to people simply because they
"look Hispanic". (There are *plenty* of existing laws that address
that!) There are illegal immigrants from Canada, Europe, etc....and
lots of legal Hispanic Americans.


A national ID card would solve your landlord problem. I agree that
landlords should not rent to illegals.


Overall, I'm opposed to to asking people to carry general ID cards.
First you need to carry one, then you need to show it along with your
registration card to vote, then merchants begin demanding it for major
transactions, then pretty soon you need to show it to get on a bus,
cross a state border, buy an aspirin, etc.........

You could use that same rational with birth certificates.

And odd aspect of the discussion, IMO, centers on the fact that so
many people who seem willing to form a militia and rise up against the
FEDGOV before consenting to federal registry of their firearms
apparently have very little difficulty with registering their persons.
You may not be one of those people, JohnH- but I have met a fair
number.

I'm not in that number. The last time I bought a pistol I filled out the
appropriate paperwork. I didn't ask a lot of questions, and didn't mind
doing so. If I use the pistol to commit a crime and get ID'd because of it,
then so be it.

While a federal boater ID card doesn't seem that aggregious, it can be
a first step toward oppressive federal regulation.

So could a birth certificate.

"Going fishing this weekend, John?"

"Naw, dammit. Some government flunky lost my application for a 3-day
navigation permit. *******s cashed my check for the $50 processing
fee, however. Looks like I'll be back on the water for a weekend in
another 45 days, assuming they don't lose the paperwork again."

Wherever that is, I don't want to live there. :-)

Or...nope, I didn't have my birth certificate. Your arguments lean toward
the absurd. They seem to support the 'no ID' philosophy which allows anyone
to vote, whether a citizen or not. I don't buy it.

Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
 

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
ups.com...


One of the challenges is that under existing law, a USCG boarding
officer cannot ask anybody aboard the boat for identification, but
only for documents identifying the boat.

Some additional insight on this issue:

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o.../Gov.Lacks.htm


That doesn't make sense. The USCG is the only branch of the service that is
empowered to arrest a civilian. Seems like they would need to know who they
are arresting.

Eisboch

Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
 

On Oct 31, 10:11?am, John H. wrote:


Or...nope, I didn't have my birth certificate. Your arguments lean toward
the absurd. They seem to support the 'no ID' philosophy which allows anyone
to vote, whether a citizen or not. I don't buy it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Since there is no such thing as a "federal election," (citizens do not
directly elect any federal officials- except Senators and
Representatives from their individual states) there is no need for a
federal voter ID.

The smaller the government, the less of a threat it becomes to the
governed.Let the individual states take responsibiity for identifying
residents and issuing licenses for franchise and privileges. If State
X, for example, registeres everybody who can fog a mirror to vote the
solution is to tighten up procedures in that individual state- not
mandate a huge federal ID program. IMO.

Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
 

On Oct 31, 10:39?am, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

ups.com...



One of the challenges is that under existing law, a USCG boarding
officer cannot ask anybody aboard the boat for identification, but
only for documents identifying the boat.

Some additional insight on this issue:

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...mber/Gov.Lacks...

That doesn't make sense. The USCG is the only branch of the service that is
empowered to arrest a civilian. Seems like they would need to know who they
are arresting.

Eisboch

I'm far from entirely informed on the details of USCG arrest powers
(thank heavens!), but they may be allowed to ask for ID when making an
arrest but not when conducting a boarding.

A failure to identify the person being arrested would be contrary to
the Constitution on an extremely fundamental basis. How could anybody
rely on the right of habeus corpus if the government could factually
claim "We have no idea who we have in custody!"?

Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
 

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 31, 10:39?am, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

ups.com...



One of the challenges is that under existing law, a USCG boarding
officer cannot ask anybody aboard the boat for identification, but
only for documents identifying the boat.

Some additional insight on this issue:

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...mber/Gov.Lacks...

That doesn't make sense. The USCG is the only branch of the service that
is
empowered to arrest a civilian. Seems like they would need to know who
they
are arresting.

Eisboch

I'm far from entirely informed on the details of USCG arrest powers
(thank heavens!), but they may be allowed to ask for ID when making an
arrest but not when conducting a boarding.

A failure to identify the person being arrested would be contrary to
the Constitution on an extremely fundamental basis. How could anybody
rely on the right of habeus corpus if the government could factually
claim "We have no idea who we have in custody!"?


Who cares? The way things stand now, the guvmint can claim you're a
terrorist and refuse to tell you or anyone else on earth IF you're in
custody, or why.

Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
 

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 31, 10:39?am, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

ups.com...



One of the challenges is that under existing law, a USCG boarding
officer cannot ask anybody aboard the boat for identification, but
only for documents identifying the boat.

Some additional insight on this issue:

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...mber/Gov.Lacks...

That doesn't make sense. The USCG is the only branch of the service that
is
empowered to arrest a civilian. Seems like they would need to know who
they
are arresting.

Eisboch

I'm far from entirely informed on the details of USCG arrest powers
(thank heavens!), but they may be allowed to ask for ID when making an
arrest but not when conducting a boarding.

A failure to identify the person being arrested would be contrary to
the Constitution on an extremely fundamental basis. How could anybody
rely on the right of habeus corpus if the government could factually
claim "We have no idea who we have in custody!"?


I never knew this before until a week or so ago. There was a show on "The
Military Channel" that was doing a feature on each of the armed forces
academies. The CG is the only one that can make an arrest. The Navy can
stop, board and search but if an arrest requirement results, they have to
hold the subjects and call for the CG.

Eisboch

Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
 

On Oct 31, 12:00?pm, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:39:08 -0700, Chuck Gould





wrote:
On Oct 31, 10:11?am, John H. wrote:

Or...nope, I didn't have my birth certificate. Your arguments lean toward
the absurd. They seem to support the 'no ID' philosophy which allows anyone
to vote, whether a citizen or not. I don't buy it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Since there is no such thing as a "federal election," (citizens do not
directly elect any federal officials- except Senators and
Representatives from their individual states) there is no need for a
federal voter ID.

The smaller the government, the less of a threat it becomes to the
governed.Let the individual states take responsibiity for identifying
residents and issuing licenses for franchise and privileges. If State
X, for example, registeres everybody who can fog a mirror to vote the
solution is to tighten up procedures in that individual state- not
mandate a huge federal ID program. IMO.

Well, we differ in opinions. Wonder why there was so much vote recounting
in Florida? Just stupidity?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The closer the election, the more bitter the losers will be and the
greater the propensity to scream "fraud!". It's always regrettable
when the margin of victory for one candidate or another is obviously
less than the amount of normal human error and the couple of percent
skullduggery included in any count of hundreds of thousands of votes.

In my state, the last governor's race was decided by less than 200
votes. The losers are still screaming bloody murder, after turning the
largest "blue" county upside down trying to prove a rigged election.
Fact is, the folks representing the losing candidate are absolutely
right- there undoubtedly were errors made and even some fraudulent
ballots cast in that election- the impossible challenge is to sort out
how many of the errors and fraudulent votes favored which side in the
end? The errors and fraudulent votes go both ways. (one of the things
that came to light during our local protest was that a voter for the
losing candidate actually voted twice- using his recently deceased
wife's absentee ballot for the second vote. His excuse was "she
intended to vote for that candidate, and would have done so had she
lived until the election.")

I absolutely favor honest elections, as well as safe boating. But we
do disagree that a national ID card would do very much to eliminate
fraud and mistakes in the election process or keep criminal terrorists
off the water.

Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
 

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:39:08 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Oct 31, 10:11?am, John H. wrote:


Or...nope, I didn't have my birth certificate. Your arguments lean toward
the absurd. They seem to support the 'no ID' philosophy which allows anyone
to vote, whether a citizen or not. I don't buy it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Since there is no such thing as a "federal election," (citizens do not
directly elect any federal officials- except Senators and
Representatives from their individual states) there is no need for a
federal voter ID.

The smaller the government, the less of a threat it becomes to the
governed.Let the individual states take responsibiity for identifying
residents and issuing licenses for franchise and privileges. If State
X, for example, registeres everybody who can fog a mirror to vote the
solution is to tighten up procedures in that individual state- not
mandate a huge federal ID program. IMO.


Well, we differ in opinions. Wonder why there was so much vote recounting
in Florida? Just stupidity?

Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
 

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:20:13 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:28:00 -0500, John H. penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 07:17:12 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

USA Today reports this morning that Homeland Security has ordered one
of its divisions, (the USCG) to define a plan to positively identify
boaters. The rationale is that small boats could be loaded with
explosives and used to
blow up military or commercial vessels, ala USS Cole. Until the USCG
presents its plan we don't know the details, but possible requirements
*could* include, at a minimum, carrying a national Boater ID card.
(Something the Administration seems to favor, based on its proposals
in several areas).

Snipped

I'm a believer in a national ID card, whether it helps ID boaters or not.
Of course, many who are in favor of illegal immigration are opposed to
same.

Your rationale could easily be applied to boat or vehicle registration or
birth certificates.

Europeans don't leave home without their national ID. We should be doing
the same.

Wouldn't it be more prudent and cost effective to have chips implanted
at birth? No more lost children or adults, in case of emergency you
could be immediately located and identified, and the government would
know where you are at any given time. No more terrorism!

It would be even more prudent to completely do away with any form of ID? No
birth certificate, no diplomas, no paperwork of any kind which identifies a
person. You say you're Gene, I say I'm Gene, and no one can tell the
difference, except maybe your mom. But, that would assume she was given the
right child at the hospital, where no form of ID was used. Interesting.

Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
 

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:22:20 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Oct 31, 12:00?pm, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:39:08 -0700, Chuck Gould





wrote:
On Oct 31, 10:11?am, John H. wrote:

Or...nope, I didn't have my birth certificate. Your arguments lean toward
the absurd. They seem to support the 'no ID' philosophy which allows anyone
to vote, whether a citizen or not. I don't buy it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Since there is no such thing as a "federal election," (citizens do not
directly elect any federal officials- except Senators and
Representatives from their individual states) there is no need for a
federal voter ID.

The smaller the government, the less of a threat it becomes to the
governed.Let the individual states take responsibiity for identifying
residents and issuing licenses for franchise and privileges. If State
X, for example, registeres everybody who can fog a mirror to vote the
solution is to tighten up procedures in that individual state- not
mandate a huge federal ID program. IMO.

Well, we differ in opinions. Wonder why there was so much vote recounting
in Florida? Just stupidity?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The closer the election, the more bitter the losers will be and the
greater the propensity to scream "fraud!". It's always regrettable
when the margin of victory for one candidate or another is obviously
less than the amount of normal human error and the couple of percent
skullduggery included in any count of hundreds of thousands of votes.

In my state, the last governor's race was decided by less than 200
votes. The losers are still screaming bloody murder, after turning the
largest "blue" county upside down trying to prove a rigged election.
Fact is, the folks representing the losing candidate are absolutely
right- there undoubtedly were errors made and even some fraudulent
ballots cast in that election- the impossible challenge is to sort out
how many of the errors and fraudulent votes favored which side in the
end? The errors and fraudulent votes go both ways. (one of the things
that came to light during our local protest was that a voter for the
losing candidate actually voted twice- using his recently deceased
wife's absentee ballot for the second vote. His excuse was "she
intended to vote for that candidate, and would have done so had she
lived until the election.")

I absolutely favor honest elections, as well as safe boating. But we
do disagree that a national ID card would do very much to eliminate
fraud and mistakes in the election process or keep criminal terrorists
off the water.

But, you do agree that the number of individual votes has some bearing.
That's a start.

A national ID, if properly done, would be much more effective than *no* ID
at eliminating fraud and mistakes. If you disagree with that, then there's
no point in further discussion.

Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
 

"John H." wrote in message
...


It would be even more prudent to completely do away with any form of ID?
No
birth certificate, no diplomas, no paperwork of any kind which identifies
a
person. You say you're Gene, I say I'm Gene, and no one can tell the
difference, except maybe your mom. But, that would assume she was given
the
right child at the hospital, where no form of ID was used. Interesting.


I like it. Think about it .... 100 years ago nobody had a driver's license
or a social security card number. Many probably didn't even have a birth
certificate.

It gives cause to really think about where we are heading. Implanted chips
at birth is not out of the question.

Eisboch

Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
 

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:28:00 -0500, John H. penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 07:17:12 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

USA Today reports this morning that Homeland Security has ordered one
of its divisions, (the USCG) to define a plan to positively identify
boaters. The rationale is that small boats could be loaded with
explosives and used to
blow up military or commercial vessels, ala USS Cole. Until the USCG
presents its plan we don't know the details, but possible requirements
*could* include, at a minimum, carrying a national Boater ID card.
(Something the Administration seems to favor, based on its proposals
in several areas).

Snipped

I'm a believer in a national ID card, whether it helps ID boaters or not.
Of course, many who are in favor of illegal immigration are opposed to
same.

Your rationale could easily be applied to boat or vehicle registration or
birth certificates.

Europeans don't leave home without their national ID. We should be doing
the same.

Wouldn't it be more prudent and cost effective to have chips implanted
at birth? No more lost children or adults, in case of emergency you
could be immediately located and identified, and the government would
know where you are at any given time. No more terrorism!

--

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepage
http://pamandgene.idleplay.net/

Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide
http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats

Mr. Ellison and Oracle can run the supply side.

Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"John H." wrote in message
...


It would be even more prudent to completely do away with any form of ID?
No
birth certificate, no diplomas, no paperwork of any kind which identifies
a
person. You say you're Gene, I say I'm Gene, and no one can tell the
difference, except maybe your mom. But, that would assume she was given
the
right child at the hospital, where no form of ID was used. Interesting.


I like it. Think about it .... 100 years ago nobody had a driver's
license or a social security card number. Many probably didn't even have
a birth certificate.

It gives cause to really think about where we are heading. Implanted
chips at birth is not out of the question.

Eisboch


Very, VERY bad idea....

Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
 

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:50:30 GMT, penned the following
well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:16:17 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:
|
|On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:13:36 -0400, penned the following
|well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:
|
|On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 07:17:12 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:
|
|USA Today reports this morning that Homeland Security has ordered one
|of its divisions, (the USCG) to define a plan to positively identify
|boaters. The rationale is that small boats could be loaded with
|explosives and used to
|blow up military or commercial vessels, ala USS Cole. Until the USCG
|presents its plan we don't know the details, but possible requirements
|*could* include, at a minimum, carrying a national Boater ID card.
|(Something the Administration seems to favor, based on its proposals
|in several areas).
|
|
|
|I don't know where USA Today got their information, but the USCG
|proposal specifically REJECTS creation of any additional or special
|ID. They adamantly DO NOT want one. The idea is that any photo ID such
|as a drivers license or state issued ID in lieu of a drivers license
|would be all that is needed.
|
|
|Not so, Dana Goward, director of Coast Guard maritime domain
|awareness, is "very concerned about people doing harm with small
|vessels" and that it is “time to look at this other gap."
|
|Adm. Thad Allen, commandant of the Coast Guard says, "... that the
|issue needed extra attention." Allen is, also, in favor of
|"requir[ing] boat operators to have a special license," because that
|apparently has some magical power to allow us to "know to a degree of
|certainty who are operating boats out there."
|
|
|The USCG WRITTEN proposal specifically and emphaticaly rejects the
|idea of a new, separate ID. They want to require that you carry a
|drivers license or other similar ID.
|

Cite?

--

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepage
http://pamandgene.idleplay.net/

Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide
http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats
-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------

Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
 

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:46:09 -0500, John H. penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:


|You and Chuck both seem to say nothing is necessary because it's not
|perfection. I disagree with that attitude. ID's can be developed that have
|much more than a picture imprinted thereon. But, those won't be perfect
|either.
|
|I disagree with the attitude that since perfection is unobtainable, we
|should do nothing.

No. What I am saying is that adding yet another piece of paper to
those already required will not enhance security any more than giving
illegal aliens a driver's license does.

We had a sufficient paper trail to have deported most, if not all, of
the perps from 9/11, but that did us no good. I already have a
passport.... what would a national id do that it won't?

--

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepage
http://pamandgene.idleplay.net/

Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide
http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats
-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------

Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
 

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

I like it. Think about it .... 100 years ago nobody had a driver's
license or a social security card number. Many probably didn't even have
a birth certificate.

It gives cause to really think about where we are heading. Implanted
chips at birth is not out of the question.

Eisboch


Very, VERY bad idea....


I can think of one presidential candidate who would probably love the idea.
You know .... the one that wants to bonus every kid with 5k at birth. How
else will your "investment" be tracked?

Eisboch

Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
 

On Oct 31, 11:52?am, wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:39:08 -0700, Chuck Gould





wrote:
On Oct 31, 10:11?am, John H. wrote:

Or...nope, I didn't have my birth certificate. Your arguments lean toward
the absurd. They seem to support the 'no ID' philosophy which allows anyone
to vote, whether a citizen or not. I don't buy it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Since there is no such thing as a "federal election," (citizens do not
directly elect any federal officials- except Senators and
Representatives from their individual states) there is no need for a
federal voter ID.

The smaller the government, the less of a threat it becomes to the
governed.

You mean like a one man dictatorship or a monarchy?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No, small also implies a limitation of power as well as the number of
people participating in the process of governing. Absolute
governments, such as a dictatorship or a non-constitutional monarchy
are enormous in their intrusion and power.

We had it about right during the Constitutional convention. We fairly
well perfected it with the Bill of Rights. It's gone gradually all to
heck since then. :-)

Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
 

On Oct 31, 11:50 am, wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:16:17 -0400, Gene Kearns





wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:13:36 -0400, penned the following
well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 07:17:12 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

USA Today reports this morning that Homeland Security has ordered one
of its divisions, (the USCG) to define a plan to positively identify
boaters. The rationale is that small boats could be loaded with
explosives and used to
blow up military or commercial vessels, ala USS Cole. Until the USCG
presents its plan we don't know the details, but possible requirements
*could* include, at a minimum, carrying a national Boater ID card.
(Something the Administration seems to favor, based on its proposals
in several areas).

I don't know where USA Today got their information, but the USCG
proposal specifically REJECTS creation of any additional or special
ID. They adamantly DO NOT want one. The idea is that any photo ID such
as a drivers license or state issued ID in lieu of a drivers license
would be all that is needed.

Not so, Dana Goward, director of Coast Guard maritime domain
awareness, is "very concerned about people doing harm with small
vessels" and that it is "time to look at this other gap."

Adm. Thad Allen, commandant of the Coast Guard says, "... that the
issue needed extra attention." Allen is, also, in favor of
"requir[ing] boat operators to have a special license," because that
apparently has some magical power to allow us to "know to a degree of
certainty who are operating boats out there."

The USCG WRITTEN proposal specifically and emphaticaly rejects the
idea of a new, separate ID. They want to require that you carry a
drivers license or other similar ID.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have been under the impression that the final and formal proposal
has yet to be presented. Where did you find a copy of the final
proposal?

Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

I like it. Think about it .... 100 years ago nobody had a driver's
license or a social security card number. Many probably didn't even
have a birth certificate.

It gives cause to really think about where we are heading. Implanted
chips at birth is not out of the question.

Eisboch


Very, VERY bad idea....


I can think of one presidential candidate who would probably love the
idea. You know .... the one that wants to bonus every kid with 5k at
birth. How else will your "investment" be tracked?

Eisboch


Read a story in the NY Times about a month ago, about a British woman who's
been visiting here to teach for quite a few years. Suddenly, her visa was
revoked. Friends here have asked their congressman to look into it, and
they've had lawyers pound the government for answers, but absolutely nobody
can seem to find out what the problem is. She doesn't seem to be even
remotely connected with terrorism issues.

With a government like ours, this could be you or I mistakenly labeled as
who-knows-what. I wouldn't wanna be "chipped" under those circumstances.

Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
 

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:43:05 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:29:44 -0500, John H. penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:20:13 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:28:00 -0500, John H. penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 07:17:12 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

USA Today reports this morning that Homeland Security has ordered one
of its divisions, (the USCG) to define a plan to positively identify
boaters. The rationale is that small boats could be loaded with
explosives and used to
blow up military or commercial vessels, ala USS Cole. Until the USCG
presents its plan we don't know the details, but possible requirements
*could* include, at a minimum, carrying a national Boater ID card.
(Something the Administration seems to favor, based on its proposals
in several areas).

Snipped

I'm a believer in a national ID card, whether it helps ID boaters or not.
Of course, many who are in favor of illegal immigration are opposed to
same.

Your rationale could easily be applied to boat or vehicle registration or
birth certificates.

Europeans don't leave home without their national ID. We should be doing
the same.

Wouldn't it be more prudent and cost effective to have chips implanted
at birth? No more lost children or adults, in case of emergency you
could be immediately located and identified, and the government would
know where you are at any given time. No more terrorism!

It would be even more prudent to completely do away with any form of ID? No
birth certificate, no diplomas, no paperwork of any kind which identifies a
person. You say you're Gene, I say I'm Gene, and no one can tell the
difference, except maybe your mom. But, that would assume she was given the
right child at the hospital, where no form of ID was used. Interesting.

You refute your own notion of the effectiveness of a national id
because even your own mother can't be sure *you* are *you*. A
photographic image would only serve to prove that you are not your
Mom, but, then, maybe you could be because you were both given to the
wrong parents. (Imagine how many bureaucrats you'd have to hire to
sort that out.)

No. A piece of paper is only a piece of paper. It may make the masses
*feel safe,* but, alas, it is *only* a piece of paper.

You and Chuck both seem to say nothing is necessary because it's not
perfection. I disagree with that attitude. ID's can be developed that have
much more than a picture imprinted thereon. But, those won't be perfect
either.

I disagree with the attitude that since perfection is unobtainable, we
should do nothing.

Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:47:23 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
. ..


It would be even more prudent to completely do away with any form of ID?
No
birth certificate, no diplomas, no paperwork of any kind which
identifies
a
person. You say you're Gene, I say I'm Gene, and no one can tell the
difference, except maybe your mom. But, that would assume she was given
the
right child at the hospital, where no form of ID was used. Interesting.


I like it. Think about it .... 100 years ago nobody had a driver's
license
or a social security card number. Many probably didn't even have a birth
certificate.

It gives cause to really think about where we are heading. Implanted
chips
at birth is not out of the question.

Eisboch


Who would own your home? The guy with the biggest gun?

Worked in the wild west before identity theft.

Eisboch

Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
 

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:10:33 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Oct 31, 9:07?am, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 08:58:37 -0700, Chuck Gould

wrote:
secondly there is no workable way to
sort out who is a legal resident and who is not.

In a sense.

I don't know what you do, but when we rent, positive identification, a
credit check, valid bank account and positive work history are all
part of qualifying to rent one of ours.

While it dosen't keep one from renting to immigrants, legal or
otherwise, it cuts down on the possibility.

We check ID, verify employment, and run a credit check as well.
It's possible to get a driver's license without being a citizen, most
of the illegals have a job of some kind, and it's pretty easy to
qualify for many types of credit. It would be tough for a guy who just
sneaked over the border last week to have enough stuff together, but
pretty easy for somebody who came across last year to have as many
credentials as a freshly graduated college student.

Possible, but unlikely.

At least around here.

Good point though.

Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
 

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:20:13 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

Wouldn't it be more prudent and cost effective to have chips implanted
at birth? No more lost children or adults, in case of emergency you
could be immediately located and identified, and the government would
know where you are at any given time. No more terrorism!

--

If I could get on a plane without doing the airport hokey pokey, buy
things by waving my hand at the cash register and make it harder for
someone to impersonate me at the bank I would take a chip today.

If something like this happened to you, I think you'd carve that chip out of
your skin with a dull knife in an instant:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/ny...icologist.html

Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
 

On Oct 31, 2:23 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:55:16 -0400, Gene Kearns





wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:50:30 GMT, penned the following
well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:16:17 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:
|
|On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:13:36 -0400, penned the following
|well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:
|
|On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 07:17:12 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:
|
|USA Today reports this morning that Homeland Security has ordered one
|of its divisions, (the USCG) to define a plan to positively identify
|boaters. The rationale is that small boats could be loaded with
|explosives and used to
|blow up military or commercial vessels, ala USS Cole. Until the USCG
|presents its plan we don't know the details, but possible requirements
|*could* include, at a minimum, carrying a national Boater ID card.
|(Something the Administration seems to favor, based on its proposals
|in several areas).
|
|
|
|I don't know where USA Today got their information, but the USCG
|proposal specifically REJECTS creation of any additional or special
|ID. They adamantly DO NOT want one. The idea is that any photo ID such
|as a drivers license or state issued ID in lieu of a drivers license
|would be all that is needed.
|
|
|Not so, Dana Goward, director of Coast Guard maritime domain
|awareness, is "very concerned about people doing harm with small
|vessels" and that it is "time to look at this other gap."
|
|Adm. Thad Allen, commandant of the Coast Guard says, "... that the
|issue needed extra attention." Allen is, also, in favor of
|"requir[ing] boat operators to have a special license," because that
|apparently has some magical power to allow us to "know to a degree of
|certainty who are operating boats out there."
|
|
|The USCG WRITTEN proposal specifically and emphaticaly rejects the
|idea of a new, separate ID. They want to require that you carry a
|drivers license or other similar ID.
|

Cite?

You don't need one, Gene. The USCG is already being asked to do a

In other words, you don't have any idea what the final WRITTEN
proposal will "specifically and emphatically" recommend or reject and
you're just mumbling through your hat?

Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
 

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:23:28 -0400, penned the following
well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:55:16 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:
|
|On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:50:30 GMT, penned the following
|well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:
|
||On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:16:17 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:
||
||On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:13:36 -0400, penned the following
||well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:
||
||On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 07:17:12 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:
||
||USA Today reports this morning that Homeland Security has ordered one
||of its divisions, (the USCG) to define a plan to positively identify
||boaters. The rationale is that small boats could be loaded with
||explosives and used to
||blow up military or commercial vessels, ala USS Cole. Until the USCG
||presents its plan we don't know the details, but possible requirements
||*could* include, at a minimum, carrying a national Boater ID card.
||(Something the Administration seems to favor, based on its proposals
||in several areas).
||
||
||
||I don't know where USA Today got their information, but the USCG
||proposal specifically REJECTS creation of any additional or special
||ID. They adamantly DO NOT want one. The idea is that any photo ID such
||as a drivers license or state issued ID in lieu of a drivers license
||would be all that is needed.
||
||
||Not so, Dana Goward, director of Coast Guard maritime domain
||awareness, is "very concerned about people doing harm with small
||vessels" and that it is “time to look at this other gap."
||
||Adm. Thad Allen, commandant of the Coast Guard says, "... that the
||issue needed extra attention." Allen is, also, in favor of
||"requir[ing] boat operators to have a special license," because that
||apparently has some magical power to allow us to "know to a degree of
||certainty who are operating boats out there."
||
||
||The USCG WRITTEN proposal specifically and emphaticaly rejects the
||idea of a new, separate ID. They want to require that you carry a
||drivers license or other similar ID.
||
|
|Cite?
|
|You don't need one, Gene.

No, you need one....

.....if you make a statement in this newsgroup that doesn't hold
water..... prepare to be asked for a citation. I posted the public
statements of the head of that organization and a citation to prove
that I didn't pull that bit of info from the inner recesses. You've
struck a pose, saying just the opposite of the words of the
commandant.... thus, if you know something to the contrary of what
has been published and cited, you need your own refuting citation.


|The USCG is already being asked to do a lot more with
|less funding. They can't even get obsolete worn out equipment replaced that was
|budgeted years ago. That includes many boats. Why on earth would they want to
|add the huge job of issuing and administering boater ID's? They don't have the
|money or manpower to keep up with what is already on their plate. Sheesh.

I agree with that 110%, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with
your unsupported statement.

--

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepage
http://pamandgene.idleplay.net/

Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide
http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats
-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------

Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
 

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:47:23 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
.. .


It would be even more prudent to completely do away with any form of ID?
No
birth certificate, no diplomas, no paperwork of any kind which identifies
a
person. You say you're Gene, I say I'm Gene, and no one can tell the
difference, except maybe your mom. But, that would assume she was given
the
right child at the hospital, where no form of ID was used. Interesting.


I like it. Think about it .... 100 years ago nobody had a driver's license
or a social security card number. Many probably didn't even have a birth
certificate.

It gives cause to really think about where we are heading. Implanted chips
at birth is not out of the question.

Eisboch


Who would own your home? The guy with the biggest gun?

Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
 

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:08:31 -0500, John H. penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:03:43 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:
|
|On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:46:09 -0500, John H. penned the following well
|considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:
|
|
||You and Chuck both seem to say nothing is necessary because it's not
||perfection. I disagree with that attitude. ID's can be developed that have
||much more than a picture imprinted thereon. But, those won't be perfect
||either.
||
||I disagree with the attitude that since perfection is unobtainable, we
||should do nothing.
|
|No. What I am saying is that adding yet another piece of paper to
|those already required will not enhance security any more than giving
|illegal aliens a driver's license does.
|
|We had a sufficient paper trail to have deported most, if not all, of
|the perps from 9/11, but that did us no good. I already have a
|passport.... what would a national id do that it won't?
|
|A passport, or something similar, should be a requirement for everyone. I
|like it.

That, I don't mind..... duplicating it with another redundant layer of
incompetent bureaucracy is what makes me crazy...

--

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepage
http://pamandgene.idleplay.net/

Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide
http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats
-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------

Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
 

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:03:43 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:46:09 -0500, John H. penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:


|You and Chuck both seem to say nothing is necessary because it's not
|perfection. I disagree with that attitude. ID's can be developed that have
|much more than a picture imprinted thereon. But, those won't be perfect
|either.
|
|I disagree with the attitude that since perfection is unobtainable, we
|should do nothing.

No. What I am saying is that adding yet another piece of paper to
those already required will not enhance security any more than giving
illegal aliens a driver's license does.

We had a sufficient paper trail to have deported most, if not all, of
the perps from 9/11, but that did us no good. I already have a
passport.... what would a national id do that it won't?

A passport, or something similar, should be a requirement for everyone. I
like it.

Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
 

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:06:25 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:47:23 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
...


It would be even more prudent to completely do away with any form of ID?
No
birth certificate, no diplomas, no paperwork of any kind which
identifies
a
person. You say you're Gene, I say I'm Gene, and no one can tell the
difference, except maybe your mom. But, that would assume she was given
the
right child at the hospital, where no form of ID was used. Interesting.


I like it. Think about it .... 100 years ago nobody had a driver's
license
or a social security card number. Many probably didn't even have a birth
certificate.

It gives cause to really think about where we are heading. Implanted
chips
at birth is not out of the question.

Eisboch


Who would own your home? The guy with the biggest gun?

Worked in the wild west before identity theft.

Eisboch


Exactly.

Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
 

On Oct 31, 3:54?pm, wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:53:40 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:





On Oct 31, 2:23 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:55:16 -0400, Gene Kearns

wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:50:30 GMT, penned the following
well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:16:17 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:
|
|On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:13:36 -0400, penned the following
|well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:
|
|On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 07:17:12 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:
|
|USA Today reports this morning that Homeland Security has ordered one
|of its divisions, (the USCG) to define a plan to positively identify
|boaters. The rationale is that small boats could be loaded with
|explosives and used to
|blow up military or commercial vessels, ala USS Cole. Until the USCG
|presents its plan we don't know the details, but possible requirements
|*could* include, at a minimum, carrying a national Boater ID card.
|(Something the Administration seems to favor, based on its proposals
|in several areas).
|
|
|
|I don't know where USA Today got their information, but the USCG
|proposal specifically REJECTS creation of any additional or special
|ID. They adamantly DO NOT want one. The idea is that any photo ID such
|as a drivers license or state issued ID in lieu of a drivers license
|would be all that is needed.
|
|
|Not so, Dana Goward, director of Coast Guard maritime domain
|awareness, is "very concerned about people doing harm with small
|vessels" and that it is "time to look at this other gap."
|
|Adm. Thad Allen, commandant of the Coast Guard says, "... that the
|issue needed extra attention." Allen is, also, in favor of
|"requir[ing] boat operators to have a special license," because that
|apparently has some magical power to allow us to "know to a degree of
|certainty who are operating boats out there."
|
|
|The USCG WRITTEN proposal specifically and emphaticaly rejects the
|idea of a new, separate ID. They want to require that you carry a
|drivers license or other similar ID.
|

Cite?

You don't need one, Gene. The USCG is already being asked to do a

In other words, you don't have any idea what the final WRITTEN
proposal will "specifically and emphatically" recommend or reject and
you're just mumbling through your hat?

You keep harping about some imaginary FINAL proposal. I'm telling you what is on
the table right now, and where the USCG stands. No new "Boater ID" is at all
likely to happen. You and Dubya apparently have the same source for "bad
intelligence"

Are you a ditto head?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

My "bad intelligence" is courtesy of some guy in rec boats who wrote:

"The USCG WRITTEN proposal specifically and emphaticaly rejects the
idea of a new, separate ID. They want to require that you carry a
drivers license or other similar ID."

He seems to have the same handle that you use. That's pretty
unfortunate, it makes it hard to tell the guy who claims there is a
WRITTEN proposal apart from the guy who belittles others for asking
where to see a copy of the written proposal.