You know, I've been reading posts in this thread, and it truly
amazes me that some of the very same people who _strongly resent_
the idea of the policeman on every street corner (or is it every
tenth of a street corner these days?) being able to "demand your
papers" (your ID) -- something I don't like either -- have _no_
problem _at all_ with the police state being able to demand not only
your ID but intimate details about your family and home life, and
every tiny detail of every financial transaction you have ever
engaged in, on pain of severe punishment (ultimately enforced by
uniformed goons with guns) when the Census man or the Internal
Revenue man comes to call.

Isn't the latter much worse than the former?



With every good wish,



Kevin Alfred Strom.
--
http://kevinalfredstrom.com/

On May 1, 3:24*pm, Kevin Alfred Strom
wrote:
You know, I've been reading posts in this thread, and it truly
amazes me that some of the very same people who _strongly resent_
the idea of the policeman on every street corner (or is it every
tenth of a street corner these days?) being able to "demand your
papers" (your ID) -- something I don't like either -- have _no_
problem _at all_ with the police state being able to demand not only
your ID but intimate details about your family and home life, and
every tiny detail of every financial transaction you have ever
engaged in, on pain of severe punishment (ultimately enforced by
uniformed goons with guns) when the Census man or the Internal
Revenue man comes to call.

Isn't the latter much worse than the former?

With every good wish,

Kevin Alfred Strom.
--http://kevinalfredstrom.com/

Kevin, I think gross inconsistency is a major part of the human
condition.

I wish I saw more police everywhere - we're cut back so far we
practically have one per square mile, in a densely populated area.

Much of what the IRS asks is if you have things you can deduct to make
your tax burden lower; my main beef with that is that the thing is too
complicated anyway, but at least it evens things out a little.

FWIW, the fully Constitutional Census asked very little of me...and it
nets back some of the hard-earned tax dollars originally handed over
to the IRS. In fact, I believe that my own tax burden was not enough,
and I wish we wealthier people would be required to pay more than what
we do. I find no problem with all of that. Others may, but again,
inconsistency is legion among homo "sapiens"...

On 5/1/10 17:24 , Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:
You know, I've been reading posts in this thread, and it truly amazes me
that some of the very same people who _strongly resent_ the idea of the
policeman on every street corner (or is it every tenth of a street
corner these days?) being able to "demand your papers" (your ID) --
something I don't like either -- have _no_ problem _at all_ with the
police state being able to demand not only your ID but intimate details
about your family and home life, and every tiny detail of every
financial transaction you have ever engaged in, on pain of severe
punishment (ultimately enforced by uniformed goons with guns) when the
Census man or the Internal Revenue man comes to call.

Isn't the latter much worse than the former?




I was with my girlfriend, this weekend, when she bought a car.
Simple transaction...pick one out, write a check. Drive it home.

I was amazed to hear the business office tell her that she was
required to fill out a credit application for the transaction. Name,
address, all credit card and all bank account numbers were required.
Rent payments, utility payments, any other oblications. Employment
history for the last 10 years, with names and phone numbers.
Residential history for the last 10 years with names and phone
numbers of landlords, mortgage companies.

And all sources of supplementary income.

When asked why the hell such detailed invasion of personal
information was necessary to write a check...why not just call the
bank verify the check and the amount, or hold it until it can be
verified.

I was told this was required, in order to be in compliance with
the Patriot Act.

D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 5/1/10 17:24 , Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:


When asked why the hell such detailed invasion of personal information
was necessary to write a check...why not just call the bank verify the
check and the amount, or hold it until it can be verified.

I was told this was required, in order to be in compliance with the
Patriot Act.




large cash transactions have been suspicious as long as I can remember.

On May 2, 5:43*pm, dave wrote:

large cash transactions have been suspicious as long as I can remember.

A large transaction for you is pan-handling for 0baMa0's Change.
Besides, you can't remember past this morning.

On May 2, 3:40*pm, "Chas. Chan" wrote:
On May 2, 5:43*pm, dave wrote:



large cash transactions have been suspicious as long as I can remember.

A large transaction for you is pan-handling for 0baMa0's Change.
Besides, you can't remember past this morning.

Another useful contribution! Thanks so much!

On May 2, 2:05*pm, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 5/1/10 17:24 , Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:

You know, I've been reading posts in this thread, and it truly amazes me
that some of the very same people who _strongly resent_ the idea of the
policeman on every street corner (or is it every tenth of a street
corner these days?) being able to "demand your papers" (your ID) --
something I don't like either -- have _no_ problem _at all_ with the
police state being able to demand not only your ID but intimate details
about your family and home life, and every tiny detail of every
financial transaction you have ever engaged in, on pain of severe
punishment (ultimately enforced by uniformed goons with guns) when the
Census man or the Internal Revenue man comes to call.

Isn't the latter much worse than the former?

* *I was with my girlfriend, this weekend, when she bought a car.
Simple transaction...pick one out, write a check. Drive it home.

* *I was amazed to hear the business office tell her that she was
required to fill out a credit application for the transaction. Name,
address, all credit card and all bank account numbers were required.
Rent payments, utility payments, any other oblications. Employment
history for the last 10 years, with names and phone numbers.
Residential history for the last 10 years with names and phone
numbers of landlords, mortgage companies.

* *And all sources of supplementary income.

* *When asked why the hell such detailed invasion of personal
information was necessary to write a check...why not just call the
bank verify the check and the amount, or hold it until it can be
verified.

* *I was told this was required, in order to be in compliance with
the Patriot Act.





Well, that's pretty loopy - I can sort of understand if it was just to
guarantee that she'd be able to pay if the check rubberized, but -
Patriot Act? I've never liked the Patriot Act anyway, and I didn't
even know this was in there.

Yecchh.

On 5/2/10 17:17 , bpnjensen wrote:
On May 2, 2:05 pm, "D. Peter wrote:
On 5/1/10 17:24 , Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:

You know, I've been reading posts in this thread, and it truly amazes me
that some of the very same people who _strongly resent_ the idea of the
policeman on every street corner (or is it every tenth of a street
corner these days?) being able to "demand your papers" (your ID) --
something I don't like either -- have _no_ problem _at all_ with the
police state being able to demand not only your ID but intimate details
about your family and home life, and every tiny detail of every
financial transaction you have ever engaged in, on pain of severe
punishment (ultimately enforced by uniformed goons with guns) when the
Census man or the Internal Revenue man comes to call.

Isn't the latter much worse than the former?

I was with my girlfriend, this weekend, when she bought a car.
Simple transaction...pick one out, write a check. Drive it home.

I was amazed to hear the business office tell her that she was
required to fill out a credit application for the transaction. Name,
address, all credit card and all bank account numbers were required.
Rent payments, utility payments, any other oblications. Employment
history for the last 10 years, with names and phone numbers.
Residential history for the last 10 years with names and phone
numbers of landlords, mortgage companies.

And all sources of supplementary income.

When asked why the hell such detailed invasion of personal
information was necessary to write a check...why not just call the
bank verify the check and the amount, or hold it until it can be
verified.

I was told this was required, in order to be in compliance with
the Patriot Act.





Well, that's pretty loopy - I can sort of understand if it was just to
guarantee that she'd be able to pay if the check rubberized, but -
Patriot Act? I've never liked the Patriot Act anyway, and I didn't
even know this was in there.

There are a lot of ways for the dealership to protect itself from
a rubber check. Including simply holding the vehicle until cleared.
This was wholly unnecessary.



Yecchh.

On May 2, 3:22*pm, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 5/2/10 17:17 , bpnjensen wrote:





On May 2, 2:05 pm, "D. Peter *wrote:
On 5/1/10 17:24 , Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:

You know, I've been reading posts in this thread, and it truly amazes me
that some of the very same people who _strongly resent_ the idea of the
policeman on every street corner (or is it every tenth of a street
corner these days?) being able to "demand your papers" (your ID) --
something I don't like either -- have _no_ problem _at all_ with the
police state being able to demand not only your ID but intimate details
about your family and home life, and every tiny detail of every
financial transaction you have ever engaged in, on pain of severe
punishment (ultimately enforced by uniformed goons with guns) when the
Census man or the Internal Revenue man comes to call.

Isn't the latter much worse than the former?

* * I was with my girlfriend, this weekend, when she bought a car.
Simple transaction...pick one out, write a check. Drive it home.

* * I was amazed to hear the business office tell her that she was
required to fill out a credit application for the transaction. Name,
address, all credit card and all bank account numbers were required.
Rent payments, utility payments, any other oblications. Employment
history for the last 10 years, with names and phone numbers.
Residential history for the last 10 years with names and phone
numbers of landlords, mortgage companies.

* * And all sources of supplementary income.

* * When asked why the hell such detailed invasion of personal
information was necessary to write a check...why not just call the
bank verify the check and the amount, or hold it until it can be
verified.

* * I was told this was required, in order to be in compliance with
the Patriot Act.

Well, that's pretty loopy - I can sort of understand if it was just to
guarantee that she'd be able to pay if the check rubberized, but -
Patriot Act? *I've never liked the Patriot Act anyway, and I didn't
even know this was in there.

* *There are a lot of ways for the dealership to protect itself from
a rubber check. Including simply holding the vehicle until cleared.
This was wholly unnecessary.

Absolutely, fully agree.

On 5/2/10 18:24 , bpnjensen wrote:
On May 2, 3:22 pm, "D. Peter wrote:
On 5/2/10 17:17 , bpnjensen wrote:





On May 2, 2:05 pm, "D. Peter wrote:
On 5/1/10 17:24 , Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:

You know, I've been reading posts in this thread, and it truly amazes me
that some of the very same people who _strongly resent_ the idea of the
policeman on every street corner (or is it every tenth of a street
corner these days?) being able to "demand your papers" (your ID) --
something I don't like either -- have _no_ problem _at all_ with the
police state being able to demand not only your ID but intimate details
about your family and home life, and every tiny detail of every
financial transaction you have ever engaged in, on pain of severe
punishment (ultimately enforced by uniformed goons with guns) when the
Census man or the Internal Revenue man comes to call.

Isn't the latter much worse than the former?

I was with my girlfriend, this weekend, when she bought a car.
Simple transaction...pick one out, write a check. Drive it home.

I was amazed to hear the business office tell her that she was
required to fill out a credit application for the transaction. Name,
address, all credit card and all bank account numbers were required.
Rent payments, utility payments, any other oblications. Employment
history for the last 10 years, with names and phone numbers.
Residential history for the last 10 years with names and phone
numbers of landlords, mortgage companies.

And all sources of supplementary income.

When asked why the hell such detailed invasion of personal
information was necessary to write a check...why not just call the
bank verify the check and the amount, or hold it until it can be
verified.

I was told this was required, in order to be in compliance with
the Patriot Act.

Well, that's pretty loopy - I can sort of understand if it was just to
guarantee that she'd be able to pay if the check rubberized, but -
Patriot Act? I've never liked the Patriot Act anyway, and I didn't
even know this was in there.

There are a lot of ways for the dealership to protect itself from
a rubber check. Including simply holding the vehicle until cleared.
This was wholly unnecessary.

Absolutely, fully agree.


Hold on, that's twice in three days. Let me that weather forecast.