Do you think recreational boats should be licensed?

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by SkiprJohn

I think the original question was "do you think recreational boats should be licensed?"

In Hawaii all boats must be registered if they carry an engine and are 10 feet or longer. They aren't licensed. Operators are required to have completed a training course if they are operating a boat with 10hp or more power. They are not licensed.

Would licensing help? My answer is, "no." It would help the coffers of the state but it wouldn't help safety.

The license is proof that you passed the test and it is something that can be taken away for serious violations. It doesn't have to be an additional license, it could be an endorsement on your driver's license.

Nobody should think the government makes money issuing licenses. I just paid $12.50 for my five year drivers license renewal. I suspect it cost that much or more in employee and building costs.

[first wind]

Originally Posted by jwing

Nope, it's the opposite. And that's the main reason conservative people are told to resist it. There is a powerful portion of the USA populace who want the our people to be undereducated. Much easier to control that way.

Take the time to do a little research on Common Core. If you are reading a politically motivated website, you will not be getting close to the facts. Common Core was created by educators who are motivated to bring the elementary and secondary education of USA kids up to the level that kids in other countries enjoy. It teaches kids how to think, not what to think (also scary for many people). It teaches kids how arithmetic in their heads instead of needing calculators or paper and pen. This is brain training.

if, indeed, this were true, I'd have to ask you how it intended to teach kids those things, since, under common core, they do not teach the multiplication tables and they give kids calculators to use in early grades.

when i was in school, pre common core, we were taught the multiplication tables and forbidden the use of calculators except in the higher math classes; like trig and calc. i am a wiz at math and still do my math in my head, while the kids you meet can't begin to do math without the help of a thinking machine.

i must be wrong about the goal of education and what it means to teach someone to think.

[first wind]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

I don't know where you get this idea of current education such as Common Core being great or opposed by conservatives. I live in probably one of the more "progressive" and supposedly better educated suburbs in the city of Boston which is supposedly a hub for US education, etc. My g/f lives in another such highly regarded educationwise suburb and her kid goes to public school there. And as do many of my friends' children of grade school and high school school age. And I can't believe the crap that passes for education lately. I am so glad that I had not been educated in this manner when I went to high school in the 70s. I came out knowing history of US well, both official version and less well known real history. I was also taught English language well enough, although it is my 2nd language, so that by 10th grade I already was testing at the level of 3rd year of college English. Most of today's educators, themselves semi-educated on latest propaganda by the Nat'l Teachers' Union and retained not due to the quality of their teaching but due to the union seniority, political correctness and other "progressive" ideals, themselves couldn't pass an 8th grade math test from the late 19th century log cabin school. Oh, yeah, "they teach to think", so much so that today's average college graduate is not even up to snuff in his knowledge as a high school v graduate was only 50 years ago. And more than 50% of those attending college today wouldn't qualify for trade school placement just 50-60 years ago. And no, playing video games well does not count as a "learned skill". Being able to think is like learing how to be an architect. But you can't become good at it unless you master the knowledge of the bricks or otehr builiding materials you'll be working with. And that's what they don't teach anymore going right into why you'll be designing a building or who should be living in one and discarding "the bricks". That's why for the past 20-30 years we have not seen too many US born grad students teaching in math or physics departments of the universities, as well as very few nonimmigrant children winning math or science comptetitions, etc. But they all sure know for a fact that Obama is good and Bush is bad (although personally I don't disagree with the 2nd half of the statement). And that's to me is the "common core" in one sentence.

[first wind]

Originally Posted by rwidman

"Most states adopted Common Core when considered as a superior educational system. Many states are now rejecting it as the far right, who oppose most progress, have taken control in those states. The propaganda against Common Core is so far off the mark that it would be comical if not for the number of people that actually believe it without the least bit of knowledge about what they are against. That is scary. And it is all politically motivated - that is evil."

It's opinion. Your opinion. "Propaganda" is nothing more than an opinion that's different from the one you have.

ummm yes and then no. you are very right. that's his opinion. it's also propaganda. however, propaganda is not just someone's opinion. to quote wikipedia (just to make sure of absolute accuracy):

"Propaganda is a form of communication aimed towards influencing the attitude of a population toward some cause or position.
Propaganda is information that is not impartial and used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively (perhaps lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or using loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information presented.
While the term propaganda has acquired a strongly negative connotation by association with its most manipulative and jingoistic examples, propaganda in its original sense was neutral and could refer to uses that were generally positive, such as public health recommendations, signs encouraging citizens to participate in a census or election, or messages encouraging persons to report crimes to law enforcement."

i would disagree with the writer's expressed opinion of the absolutely positive nature of his last examples. also, propaganda doesn't just lie through omission. it often uses outright lying as a technique.

[first wind]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

Thanks. Good analysis and assumption; however, there was a tad of truth in it. I designed Exxon's corporate HQs in NYC in the early 70s. Back then their CEO only made 100x what the average Joe made. What is it now? Sure, they always lobbied, but it's obscene now. So anything that would dent their customers' use of their product (not unrealistic, but even if it was in the public good?) wouldn't obtain their support. Would it?

i agree with you there. businesses being able to use friends in high places is not what capitalism or this country is about. in fact, it's very socialist. it eradicates the all of the consumer's power; power which is inherrent in the concept of capitalism.

of course, i don't think the average consumer realizes that it's also a trap for the businesses that use it. favors have to be repaid and if one business is....friendlier....with people in higher places than another business, which used to be on the in with said people, favoritism can change in a minute.

better to stand in the dirt, by your own efforts, than to stand on a gilded platform, by the gifts of another. there is always a price to pay.

corporate welfare. social welfare. the only ones that really win are those giving out the welfare.

[first wind]

Originally Posted by jwing

Since I feel like I'm arguing for Common Core with people who won't even read the Wikipedia entry, and this is not the subject of this thread (I know...I started the drift), I'm out. Have fun getting the last words in.

wikipedia is not actually a dependable, non-biased source of information. some of it really needs to be taken with a grain of salt. entries are made by anyone. no proof or credentials are necessary. it also tends to have a strong progessive, left wing bias.

[first wind]

Originally Posted by rwidman

The license is proof that you passed the test and it is something that can be taken away for serious violations. It doesn't have to be an additional license, it could be an endorsement on your driver's license.

Nobody should think the government makes money issuing licenses. I just paid $12.50 for my five year drivers license renewal. I suspect it cost that much or more in employee and building costs.

drivers licenses are a geteway to other revenue, though. once you allow them to license, they will take that to the Nth degree of regulation. you can spend a fortune at the MVA, depending on what you need to accomplish. also, in my state, i'm pretty sure licenses are not that cheap. it's been a bit since i had to renew.

loads of people, with suspended or revoked licenses, drive on the roads every day.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by first wind

wikipedia is not actually a dependable, non-biased source of information. some of it really needs to be taken with a grain of salt. entries are made by anyone. no proof or credentials are necessary. it also tends to have a strong progessive, left wing bias.

Actually wiki is becoming very dependable because of the ability for any 'registered' user to edit. That is what is making it more reliable and unbiased. I really don't understand your suggestion that it tends to be 'strong progressive, left wing bias'. Are you suggesting some sort of organised deliberate attempt by an element of society to falsify entries?

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by first wind

dumbed down learning with a focus on 'social agenda', to be accurate. it's the kind of learning where it doesn't matter if you get the answer of 4 when you multiply 2 X 2 as long as you can show how you got the answer.

the idea is supposedly that it makes you think, on your own, to get the answer (even if it's wrong); teaching you logic. it was always my assumption, however, that logic and reasoning must be based on actual fact in order to be of use.

although i could be wrong, i think that, if you multiply 2 X 2 and get anything other than 4, you are wrong. and, i also think that you won't be able to design or build much of anything if your math skills are bogus, like that.

Can anyone identify some problems with this post that would not have occurred with a better education?

[SkiprJohn]

Originally Posted by rwidman

The license is proof that you passed the test and it is something that can be taken away for serious violations. It doesn't have to be an additional license, it could be an endorsement on your driver's license.

Nobody should think the government makes money issuing licenses. I just paid $12.50 for my five year drivers license renewal. I suspect it cost that much or more in employee and building costs.

Apples and oranges. I'm talking about boating. You're talking about driving on highways. The government gets your money through license fees, taxes, fines and as many other ways as they can get it. They have a whole layer of government employees in place, going to retire, going to need health care and going to get taxpayer money just so you can pay $12.50 for a driver's license that entitles you to be in a register that can be called up at anytime by any law enforcement official or possibly be hacked by a hacker.

Count how many ways the government is involved with your life and then tell me that we need one more. Social Security, Medicare, VA ID, Retired Military ID, Prints on file for Security Clearances, addresses through the post office, credit cards that can be traced, phone records that can be traced. SSB registration, HAM radio registrations. Should we just add another one? Do we want more licenses? I'm just thinking we don't need more.

[SkiprJohn]

Originally Posted by first wind

wikipedia is not actually a dependable, non-biased source of information. some of it really needs to be taken with a grain of salt. entries are made by anyone. no proof or credentials are necessary. it also tends to have a strong progessive, left wing bias.

I agree with your statement. It has to be taken with a grain of salt and also be considered that a contributor to wikipedia is not necessarily an expert. I've found this especially true in the area of history and historical jargon. I use wikipedia but don't rely on it as the absolute truth.

I tend to believe that those contributing to wikipedia are young and have great over confidence in their expertise.

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by Polux

Sometimes I think you are just trying to piss me: Spanish authorities have only jurisdiction on vessels sailing on their waters (all of them) not regarding Dutch houses, unless those are built in Spain.

Sometimes I am wondering the same.
My contention is that the Spanish state doesn't have full jurisdiction over foreign flagged boats. You can pass whatever law you want, if you don't have jurisdiction it's moot.
Let's give another example: Airplanes: There are a lot of private planes in Europe that are registered in the US, have N- numbers and are thus flying so to speak under US flag.
To fly them you need a US pilot licence. Even if you fly them in Europe.

You have to read better the Spanish law: The ICC is not a valid licence or certification for Spanish Waters for you. For a Belgium the valid licence or certification is: BREVET VAN YACHT NAVIGATOR BREVET DE NAVIGATEUR DE YACHT

You know what you get when you pass the "Yacht navigator" exam in Belgium? you get a nice diploma, a bit larger than A4 size, on embossed paper that you can frame and hang on the wall.
I lost mine in a fire, and when I inquired if I could have it replaced I was told that I couldn't have it replaced, as it was just a nice diploma, not a document with any legal meaning whatsoever.
Which is why I can't show it to any authorities.
Luckily there is now the ICC, which seems to have as main purpose to permit officials in Spanish ports to pretend they are enforcing the law.
That is probably the same reason why the list of accepted papers is so long, and why there are so many odd ones on them (like yacht club memberships). It's mostly an exercise in pretending to do something about a perceived problem. Like a lot of what government does nowadays.

Personally I think that making it across the bay of Biscay ought to be sufficient...

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by Polux

After all it seems you don't sail much on the med otherwise you would have noticed. Older boats are smaller, newer boats are bigger. Many couples that retire and live the spring and summer on a boat are buying 50ft boats and bigger. Today a 40ft sailboat is a small cruising boat.

It's not "boats over 40ft" that need a license in Sweden, it's "boats over 12m". But boats over 12m quickly become more expensive in many other ways too, which is why I see that the 10/11m range appears to be very popular. Both in the second hand, the new and the charter market. It's also quite interesting how many boats of 11,99 m there are out there...

Unfortunately most boat builders don't tell us what numbers they produce of each model.

Look at the Oceanis, Sense, Jeanneau, Hanse and Bavaria lines: The bigger cruiser on the line have becoming bigger and bigger (growing rapidly in size to 60ft and over) and the smaller one has also become bigger and they are practically abandoning cruisers with less than 30ft. Out of racing you will see rapidly the smaller size of mass production boats going to 34/35ft. That is a rather small cruising boat today in what regards the new market.

Actually a modern 35 footer (which is what Iam hoping to buy) is roomier than a 40 footer of 20 years ago. And probably as fast...
Boats have become bigger, mostly in the marketing literature, where they will add as much to the length as possible. A Hanse 415 is still only 11,99m. So is the Jeanneau SO 409.

If someone has a breakdown of sales-per-model of major yacht manufacturers I'd be interested. I see that most manufacturers have a lot of sub 12m boats available, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's where the bulk of their sales come from.

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by first wind

wikipedia is not actually a dependable, non-biased source of information. some of it really needs to be taken with a grain of salt. entries are made by anyone. no proof or credentials are necessary. it also tends to have a strong progessive, left wing bias.

Agreed. Wikipedia is just an easy source for school kids to copy their papers from. Kids who don't want to do actual research and learn something.

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by SkiprJohn

Apples and oranges. I'm talking about boating. You're talking about driving on highways. The government gets your money through license fees, taxes, fines and as many other ways as they can get it. They have a whole layer of government employees in place, going to retire, going to need health care and going to get taxpayer money just so you can pay $12.50 for a driver's license that entitles you to be in a register that can be called up at anytime by any law enforcement official or possibly be hacked by a hacker.

Count how many ways the government is involved with your life and then tell me that we need one more. Social Security, Medicare, VA ID, Retired Military ID, Prints on file for Security Clearances, addresses through the post office, credit cards that can be traced, phone records that can be traced. SSB registration, HAM radio registrations. Should we just add another one? Do we want more licenses? I'm just thinking we don't need more.

You are on a rant and not thinking clearly. The point in testing and licensing (which is just proof that you passed the test and nothing more) is to make the water safer for everyone. This includes you and me. It means the other boater knows which side of you he should be passing on and when he/she is the stand on or give way vessel. It means he/she knows when to display an anchor light and where not to anchor.

I'm sure you could remember times when you have been put in danger by ignorant boaters. As a boater, why would you not want other boaters to be as educated and safe as you are?