***Please Read***

Friday, March 12, 2010

2010 Census—Honesty is the Best Policy

We’ve heard about it on television and the radio, and now by mail I'VE been warned that in about one week from now, you will receive a 2010 Census form in the mail. No getting around it, I’ll have to answer ten questions that will give the government information that will help determine Congressional Representation and federal aid.

While I’m not crazy about the census, I’m even less fond of the American Community Survey [more on that in an upcoming post] I’m certainly not advocating lying. As a matter of fact, I strongly suggest that EVERYONE tell the TRUTH. So, let’s take a look at each of the ten questions on the census, shall we?

First, we have questions one and two, the later is redundant.

#1. How many people were living or staying in this house, apartment, or mobile home on April 1, 2010?

In and of itself, it is appropriate; because THAT is the type of information the government needs to determine Congressional Representation. My answer: 4

BUT question #2:

Were there any additional people staying here April 1, 2010 that you did not include in Question 1?

Seriously? Do they think I'm hiding a bunch of illegals in my basement? I realize the government is accustomed to lying, therefore they assume everyone else is too. But do they really think that if I didn’t tell them in question one the amount of people in my household that I’m going to admit it in question two? Get real! Like I said, a redundant question, but do we expect any less? My answer: REFER TO QUESTION #1

Then we have question number three which asks whether the household is owned, rented, mortgaged—including home equity loans, or occupied without payment of rent. Exactly HOW does THAT determine Congressional Representation? It’s NONE of the government’s business if I own my house outright, if I’m mortgaged to the hilt, or if I’m leaching off my brother. My answer: NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS

There is room for your telephone number under question number four, where they have politely written, may we call you if we don’t understand an answer. My answer: RESPECTFULLY NO

Why they need my first name, middle initial, and last name for question five is beyond my comprehension. Call me Sally, call me Sam—neither matter, just represent me in Congress already! My answer for THAT question will be: RESIDENT OF PENNSYLVANIA

They may have my gender for question number six. I don’t have an issue with this, as I think it correlates with counting the population, male vs. female. My answer: FEMALE

Question seven wants your age and date of birth. One could make the argument that residents COULD be under the voting age and live on their own thus required to fill out a census. I’ll grant them this one. My answer: 44 --7/27/65

Question number eight is a question that has me totally perplexed.

Is Person 1 of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin?

What the heck? If I AM, does that mean my state will get extra goodies? What about the other origins? Like Asians? Indians? Blacks? Or just plain old WHITE? Are these the NEW ethnicities they are targeting now? I don’t like this question one bit and I don’t believe it belongs on a census, because ALL ethnicities require representation. My answer: THIS DOES NOT DETERMINE CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATION

We can have fun with question number nine while sending Congress a BIG message!

What is Person 1’s race?

That is definitely NOT a Congressional issue and we all know it. Race has nothing to do with representation in Congress. But it does have something to do with how much money they want to pass out. And it does state that on the questionnaire, Asked since 1790. Race is key in implementing many federal laws and is needed to monitor compliance with the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. State governments use the data to determine congressional, state and local voting districts. Race data are also used to assess fairness of employment practices, to monitor racial disparities in characteristics such as health and education and to plan and obtain funds for public services.

There you have it. However, I believe we are all Americans since America is the melting pot for ALL races and ethnicities. My answer will be: AMERICAN, just as Donald at Conservative Firestorm suggested. And as I mentioned at the beginning of my post—lying is not only WRONG, it’s also unconstitutional, so answering "American" is not telling a falsehood, because we ARE Americans. I told a friend, who said he would “fib”, that if we don’t take a stand, as Americans, and send a strong message to Congress, these types of questions will NEVER go away—they will only get worse. Don’t fib, lie or distort the truth—whichever way you choose to look at it—write in AMERICAN and spread the word to your friends and family members to do the same. Let’s send a message to Congress!

The final question—another one that is a bit baffling, but I’m sure one of my devoted readers will be more than kind enough to shine the beam of enlightenment. Anyway, the questionnaire asks if Person one sometimes lives or stays somewhere else, then lists “situations” as to where Person one could possibly be staying, like the military, college and even PRISON! Oh, I’m sure I'D readily check THAT box! By the way, the Caribbean was NOT on the list, although it does have a box for a seasonal or second residence, so Charlie Rangel should sharpen HIS memory skills before HE answers THIS question! My answer will be: REFER TO ADDRESS ON FORM

All in all, out of the 10 questions on this census, question number one is really the only question that is relevant! But isn’t 10% about what we have come to expect from our government? And at cost of $14 billion dollars of OUR money, that is totally unacceptable.

Cross-posted @ Rational Nation USA


  1. I really don't know why they even do a census,

    Considering with the data that the NSA has on all of us (credit card data, medical records, telephone records, and internet usage) all curteousy of the Patriot Act and War on Terror.

    Along with what the IRS and Social Security has...then when you add what the Veterans Administration and Defense Department has...

    Well, they know more about us than we know about ourselves.

    So, I guess they send out these little forms to give us all a chance to thumb our noses at the 'Big Government" Genie and it makes the obvious a little less painful.

  2. Tao: My goodness—we AGREE!

    You are correct. With all the “ways” they can compile information, they don’t need a “census”. It’s another way for them to give people a temporary “government job” and waste $14 billion dollars of OUR money. Ticks me off.

  3. They are asking really nosy questions, ranging from your education and your health insurance to how you spend each day at work. The survey even asks what time you leave for work, down to the hour and minute.

    It also asks whether, "because of a physical, mental or emotional condition," you have difficulty "concentrating, remembering or making decisions," "walking or climbing stairs," "doing errands alone such as visiting a doctor's office or shopping" or "dressing or bathing, next will be hopw often do you go to the bathroom."

    So much for keeping government out of the bedroom. The survey also demands your current marital status; whether you've been married, widowed or divorced in the last 12 months, and how many times you've been married.
    So I just don't sent it in... When are people going to learn that non-violent non-compliance will end this crap in a heartbeat?
    If they ask me why, I'll tell them that the do ate it.

  4. If one were really serious about protecting ones privacy:

    Don't use credit.

    Don't venture online. I wouldn't be surprised if, between Google, Amazon, Facebook, Adult Friend Finder, redit rating agencies, and financial institutions the data collected far exceeds what the folks at the census can glean from their form.

  5. On the other hand I'd rather deal with today's privacy issues than live in smalltown 19th century America where everybody knew everything about everyone.

  6. Already the census goes far beyond what our Constitution was ever meant to do..
    Big brother Obama and his henchmen would have to find me first. I keep a pretty low profile.
    Big Brother can attempt to put me in jail or attempt to fine me - but it won't be happening - there are too many people who don't even tell their families the answers to those questions - Much less the Government.

    I will - see them in court. Along with at least a few million other Freedom & Privacy loving Americans . I'll see Uncle Sam in court.

  7. Aaron: You are referring to the American Community Survey, which I mentioned in my post, saying I was going to write a future post regarding it. It’s quite invasive, as you said.

    The actual 2010 Census is only the 10 questions I outlined in my post. But, as I stated, the first question is the only one relevant to Congressional representation.

    Arthurstone: We should also not see doctors since most have computerized systems now, or use pharmacies. Basically, if we don’t want anyone to find us, we need to live on a mountain, off the land, with no phones, etc.

  8. There shouldn’t even be a racial designation on the damned thing anyway.
    So why do they ask "What is the Person race"? I absolutely agree with Pam.. It’s stupid and divisive to even list race. Besides that it’s meaningless as there are very few people in the US who are not actually multiracial. What I want to see that form is the question "are citizen or not."
    I think that the Census form have a check off box for “Liberal, Conservative or Independent ” so that Big Brother can then identify who they want to support and give free Health Care to.

  9. the malcontent said: What I want to see that form is the question "are citizen or not."

    Mal: I’d like to see that question too, however, there are few, if any, illegals who would answer THAT question!

  10. Boy, I wish I'd found your blog before I answered all those questions and sent it in. Oh well, they probably know more about me than I do!

    Thanks for the post. I'll come back.

  11. Linda: Unfortunately “they” do know more about us than we do. ugh. Guess that’s the cost for living “free” in the US of A, huh?

  12. I think question #2 is just referring to visitors. Notice that it just refers to "staying" as opposed to "living or staying" in question #1.

    I would also find the race question offensive. My inclination would be to answer "human". I don't think most anthropologists even consider traditional racial categories (white, black, Asian, etc.) to be valid classifications any more.

    #8 is probably just acknowledging that "Hispanic" is a cultural category and not a racial one, even though we think of it that way. Latin America is a racial melting pot like the US.

    Eventually this racial nonsense will become untenable due to the increasing level of interracial marriage and mixed-race people (now including the President, in fact).

  13. Thomas Jefferson was the first person in charge of the first Census in 1790. Lack of communication alternatives left no option but to hire employees to go door to door to gather information.
    The Census (a Constitutional requirement) is more than a basis for deciding Congressional Representation.
    Most importantly (modern uses) it uses the information to decide where best to direct tax dollars, that are needed to fulfill the financial needs of federal programs.
    Tracking race populations is important given the History of discrimination in the United States, and the needs of those minorities.
    I would disagree if you think discrimination no longer exists in America, and therefore, that kind of question is no longer necessary, or informative.
    I'm sure many disagree with the growth of government and the programs that are now law, but Census numbers do help determine Department budgets by defining future financial needs for those Departments.
    To serve 300 million people has complicated everything government does, including the Census.
    Our government is not evil. People in our government have done evil, criminal acts, but those people are the problem, not the government set up by the Constitution.
    Reagan was wrong when he said that, but now it has falsely, become what citizens believe.
    That is sad, unless we can regain belief that our government can and does do good, we are dead as a country already, it's just the slow death we will have to live through.
    Authority must be questioned, but the overblown, paranoid idea that government wants to "control" us, is just a false manifestation of the false assumption that government is evil.
    If the government is illegally "listening in" on us, then a person in government is responsible for that, and should be held responsible for that criminal act.
    I'm not a big believer in black helicopters, conspiracy theories, hidden government within a government, or big brother wants (to what) to harm us.
    Would our government ask us a stupid unnecessary question, sure. Do they do that for some evil intent? Sorry, I don't believe that.
    I do believe politicians in their quest for power and money, have screwed us, but then we have been negligent in being good citizens, and putting a stop to their harmful antics.
    If you believe in the Constitution, the Census is more a clear, specific requirement, than most other Articles that have been debated and tested in court for over 200 years.
    Has the Census outlived its usefulness? That's a good debatable question. We could put it to a national vote and amend the Constitution. I think we should leave it in.

  14. "I would disagree if you think discrimination no longer exists in America"

    Good point. It's alive and well as long as we have affirmative action polices that explicity demand that we hire, promote, and accept applications of people based on skin color instead of real qualifications. And if people are being promoted based on having the right skin color, it logically follows that such policies kick people down the stairs when they have the wrong skin color.

  15. Just forget about the 400 years of slavery and another 100 years of discrimination against blacks. It's the white man America has beaten down for 500 years.
    Star Trek is on.

  16. Not only that, they paid MILLIONS to mail us a letter to say it was coming, and how much on those stupid ads on TV??? sigh... I like your answers, I think I'll use them :-)

  17. believe we are all Americans since America is the melting pot for ALL races and ethnicities. My answer will be: AMERICAN

    Not to be like a beatch or anything, but 'American' isn't a race, it's a nationality.

    Race is an entirely different, genetic thing that has nothing to do with where on the planet you reside.

    I'm just saying.

  18. Dmarks,

    I have been hiring people, promoting people and all that human resources stuff for over 20 years...

    I have never read anything or been told to or been sued because I did not hire a particular race, promote a particular race, or accept applications from a particular race...

    Now, I have read and I have been told that I could NOT discriminate because of race.

    Big difference....

    So, to meet the requirements of affirmative action you:

    1. Take applications from everyone.

    2. You ask only questions related to the job and the qualifications of the job and you hire based upon that information....not based upon the color of their skin.

    3. I promote based upon skill sets and potential.

    Seems like a logical way to do things don't you think? Or are you advocating returning to a time when we had signs that read "No Blacks Apply"

    But then again I am a socialist and I want only good people working for me....and I could care less about their sex, their color, or their religion.

    Now, I did hire a lady once who walked into the job interview, who on her first day of work pulled out a wheel chair from the trunk of her car and proceeded to wheel her way into the office.

    I told everyone to keep their mouths shut and go about as if nothing was an issue...

    Later that afternoon when she informed her supervisor that she could not file because our filing cabinets were too tall (four drawer laterals) and she could not reach them...I asked her to wheel herself into my office.

    She immediately informed me that I had to make accomadations...and I informed her that on her application where a job description was posted, which stated she would have to file, it also asked immediately after the job description if there were any reasons why she could not perform the tasks of the job?

    She put "NO"

    So, I told her I was firing her for lying on her application as she had just informed us that she did in fact have a limitation...

    Then I helped her roll herself out of the building and got her wheelchair back in the trunk of the car and wished her luck on her job search and told her that next time she needed to be a little more honest in the application process.

    Don't fool yourself....affirmative action is no big deal...

  19. You're reverting to the dark side with this "census paranoia" Pamela.

    How can the right support the Patriot Act and then be against the census?

  20. White anxiety run amok. All of a sudden my tribe (the Europeans, western variety) has decided race no longer matters. Of course with a lifetime of privilege assured by the accidental circumstances (white, middle-class) of my birth race and ethnicity really DON'T matter. I already started ten yards from the finish in the great American 100 yard dash.

    Glad to have that settled. The only folks suffering from racial discrimination are people like me. Middle-aged white guys shoved aside (or rather allowed marginally fewer privileges) by uppity feminists and various minorities who seem unwilling and even unable to grasp how unfair it is to insist at their fair seat at the table.

    The nerve.

  21. Chairman: There are indeed explicity affirmative action policies that demand punishing and rewarding based on skin color. Such as the famous U of Michigan case. Not caring about race in any way during hiring is EXACTLY what I am advocating. You listed your items 1,2.3. When there are quotas, goals, or preferences, your sensible ideas are no longer in play.

    You asked: "Or are you advocating returning to a time when we had signs that read "No Blacks Apply""

    Come on now. Advocating equal opportunity as I am doing is not like that at all. I don't know where you get that.

    Arthur: Generalizing by race or "tribe" gets too close to racism itself. As definitely does the "privilege" mention. No matter how you fudge it, you can't get around the fact that any individual of any race who is discriminate against because of their skin color is a victim of racism. The only "nerve" is the idea that some people, perhaps including you, think it is OK to treat individuals badly because of the supposed crimes of their racial group.

  22. All concerned citizens all across the country needs to pick one day and blast every elected critter with an inquiry as to why they haven’t spoken out and called for investigations against ACORN.
    Glenn Beck had a chart showing how many have called for hearings on ACORN and how only two Dems have done so. WHY?

    Our elected elite cannot be bothered to do anything, other than try to shove that healthcare crap down our throats.
    M'self, I think it probably originates in the practice of force-feeding geese so their livers will get fatty for the sake of more pate'.

    Thank you JESUS!

  23. I don't know if it is still on the census, but years ago they asked, "Hkyow many bathrooms are in your home?" Can any one explain what that has to do with being represented in Congress?

  24. I received my survey but haven't really decided how to answer the questions yet.

    The questions on race, which as supposedly needed to enforce various civil rights measures, made sense 30 years ago. Today they're more just a means for the left to divide up federal goodies. Yes of course discrimination exists, but to nowhere near the degree that the left asserts.

    However, those here arguing against any census at all need to explain clearly how we are to determine congressional, state, and local representation if we don't do an exact count. TAO's answer "with the data that the NSA has on all of us" is sillyness and assumes that just because the government has Social Security and IRS records they can count us exactly is silly. Believe it or not, many Americans do not have SS numbers and do not file tax returns.

    More, even leaving race out of it, a count of people is used for much more than congressional representation. Your State House districts, county board of supervisors (or whatever you call them in your area), city districts (alderman, perhaps) are all also determined by the census.

    Going further, and again leaving race out of it, funds for education and transportation are allocated by state governments to the various counties and cities based on the census count. The more people you have, the more money for education, transportation, and other (non-racial) programs.

    So while I have a problem with the racial questions a basic census is definetely necessary.

  25. Dmarks,

    You mention the University of Michigan...

    One example that was about admissions into college.

    That also involves federal funds.

    That had nothing to do with hiring for jobs and or promoting within a company.

    Red Hunter, Over 98% of all Americans file taxes...so to claim " Believe it or not, many Americans do not have SS numbers and do not file tax returns."

    THAT is silliness...

    I bet the number of Americans that file tax returns "greatly' exceeds the number that complete the census.

    Many Americans do not have social security numbers? Really? Care to quantify that? Even illegal aliens have social security numbers now...

    That means 'many Americans' do not work, do not drive cars, do not have credit, and will not get any social security or medicare benefits....or will serve in our military.

    In regards to the racial questions....lets not forget that alot of the data collected by the census is used by researchers for things such as, what part of our population is growing the fastest? Migration patterns by ethnic groups, and a variety of other social science studies. How many single parent households, how many gay households...so on and so forth.

    But of course it is more fun to just claim that its all about liberals and their unending desire to milk discrimination and race relations for their own benefit.

    But that is no different than using entrance to college as an example of affirmative action in employment...

  26. Chairman Tao said: "That had nothing to do with hiring for jobs and or promoting within a company."

    I don't think that discussing racist admission policies at universities is really so far afield from racist policies in job hiring and promotion.

  27. Speaking of affirmative action let's not forget one person who has benefited enormously from racial preferences to the obvious approval of right-wing types who otherwise denigrate such programs.

    Clarence Thomas.

    And lest we forget what a self-pitying,angry fool the justice really is here are a couple of tidbits:

    In his dissent he dismisses the University of Michigan Law School's desire to see minority faces in the mix as ''racial aesthetics".

    He also lies about the value of his Yale Law degree in his memoirs as worth "15 cents".


    The beauty of Justice Thomas' situation is that he is a prime example of a certain kind of progress in racial politics in the good old US of A.

    Success despite obvious limitations and mediocrity is no longer the sole province of middle-class white guys.

  28. There were 6 questions on the first Census. One of those questions was how many slaves do you own. Slaves have been counted by name and age since the first Census.
    A simple check of current social statistics on black Americans clearly shows an imbalance in equal opportunity and treatment of blacks only because of their skin color.
    Again, disagree with the programs to serve that segment of our society, but the need is real, the injustice is real, the count is necessary to to project the financial need of those programs.
    I also think it is helpful to track minority groups living in the United States.
    I was refused a job in the Post Office, because of preferences. I finished in the top 2% of testing, but after Veterans preference, minority preference, female preference, etc., (who scored lower than me) their was no position left for me.
    It's a simple fact of trying to fulfill the Constitutions goal of equal opportunity. We are not there yet, not even by a long shot. Those who think so, are not educated in the reality of today's situation of equal opportunity, or worse.

  29. Arthur: Thank you for illustrating another problem with affirmative action: racists pick and choose who they will bash over being beneficaries of it.

    Thankfully, Thomas has opposed it. Making him similar to those few whites in the old South who dared oppose Jim Crow. And they get called race-traitors for opposing the special advantage of skin color

    (I know racist affirmative action programs are not near as bad as Jim Crow. But while they are not as bad, there is an unfortunate similarity in that they punish and reward people based on skin color).

    Tom: Then we need programs that address actual racism. Not the bizarre affirmative action programs which are designed to give rich blacks an advantage of poor whites, and punish individuals without any evidence that they did anything wrong.

  30. Infidel: Not to be argumentative, but you really need to take a look here and read “Start Here”. They are TOTALLY redundant. “Temporarily” and “without a permanent” are the SAME. Also question #1 instructs you to list “babies” and question #2 asks if you missed “newborn babies”. HUH? Like I said, redundant. These 2 questions could’ve been incorporated into one. Oh, wait, my bad! I’m using COMMON SENSE! : )

  31. NFO: EVERY time I see a commercial for the census I say “wasted tax dollars”!

    Satyavati said: Not to be like a beatch or anything, but 'American' isn't a race, it's a nationality.

    You are not a bee-atch!You made a very valid point. I agree that "American" isn’t a “race”. Human would probably be more fitting. I just think that “American” would send a louder message to Congress.

  32. Revered: It’s the American Community Survey you are thinking of and yes, they still ask if you have “flushing toilets” along with a stove, refrigerator, bathtub and shower. I’m wondering if they want to come over for dinner, shower and a tinkle.

    Redhunter: I believe you and I feel the same. I think the census is necessary for representation in Congress and “race” shouldn’t be a factor. If our Representatives feel that there are racial disparities in their respective districts then they should be able to do something about it as an Official of the House or Senate—on a State or even Federal level.

  33. What we need is to know the number of legal United States citizens and were they live... period.

    The legitimate purpose for the census is to establish representation in congress based on the populations geographic's and nothing else.

    The current questionnaire at the very least exceeds the legitimate purpose of the U.S. census and at the very worst is biased ethnically as well as racially.

    I surely will struggle as to how to answer both honestly and yet to provide no more than is legitimately required.

    Great post!

  34. We have to count to know what the need is. It's ridiculous to say race does not matter. It's necessary to know how much funding a program will need.

    Big surprise. Politicians designed a needed program with flaws and mistakes.

    Big surprise. The government asks stupid questions.

    It's not reality to think 400 years of slavery, beatings, murders, and destruction of family generations, can be balanced by 40 years of affirmative action.

    The crime of slavery was of Biblical proportions. The attitude I hear, is blacks should be grateful we gave them what they wanted (freedom and equality).

    How silly. We have not fulfilled the promise of equality yet, and what kind of attitude should blacks have after what we did to them?

    Generations of Americans committed the crime of slavery, so it's not over just because current day whites no longer own black people.

    Slaves built the wealth of rich white people and the nation, with their lives.

    Disagree with affirmative action, but offer no alternative, like we owe the black community nothing.


    Neither you nor I are responsible for the sins of those who lived 400 years ago. Times and norms where much different then.

    I abhor the concept of slavery and bondage as much as you do. However, I feel no responsibility for those who came before me. Nor am I willing to be a slave to the ideology that professes I should.

    I respect all men and women who strive to be independent and resourceful... regardless of color or ethnicity.

    During my time as a manager I have encouraged and promoted Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, whatever based on ability and desire. I have found little difference between races and ethnicity if ability and desire were similar.

    The whole concept of quota's and affirmative action in this day and age serves only to keep minorities down and reinforce they have been, and will continue to be discriminated against if not for "savoir: big" brother government.

    This serves the politician's desire to further enhance their likelihood for reelection based on their promise to right the presumed inequities perpetrated on the minorities by the evil white folk.

    All I can say is speak for yourself if you are guilty of that you accuse American society of in general. I am not, nor are millions of other "white folk", racist nor do we owe anything other than "equal respect and opportunity", both of which are earned in modern America.

  36. Tom said: "It's not reality to think 400 years of slavery, beatings, murders, and destruction of family generations, can be balanced by 40 years of affirmative action."

    If you are referring to the part of affirmative action that involves goals, quotas, and preferences, then they can't balance anything. Because they create new racial injustice, and correct nothing.

    "Disagree with affirmative action, but offer no alternative, like we owe the black community nothing."

    So, what is "the black community"? Who is in it? Barack Obama, whose black ancestors never lived in the US and had nothing to do with slavery? Gen. Colin Powell, whose black ancestors are from the Caribbean instead of from the US... and also had nothing to do with American slavery? The millions in the black American middle class, who prosper now despite that their ancestors suffered in America?

    "Slaves built the wealth of rich white people and the nation, with their lives."

    Rich white people like Lee Iacocca, whose ancestors came to America in poverty after slavery was over?

    Generalizations really don't work well, do they? If you want to solve a problem, solve the problem of the condition of poverty. Not the condition of blackness. Unlike skin color, poverty is a reliable indicator of disadvantage.

  37. As I said, slavery is a generational crime. An American crime. Sure you would like to forget and wash yourselves from what our ancestors did, but we hail other things they did, like the Constitution where we wrote all men are created equal. Take the good that built you a better life, deny the bad that caused the generational suffering of millions. You are wrong, we do owe them. If you want to scream at me, shove it up your .......
    Right demarks, the majority of blacks are enjoying the life of President Obama. Go back to watching Star Trek. You embrace fiction, not facts. Your generalizations are don't even have the beginnings of truth.
    Affirmative action has not balanced the books, but it has only been around 40 years. We enslaved people for 400 years.

  38. "Right demarks, the majority of blacks are enjoying the life of President Obama."

    I never said majority. But many. Large numbers of African-Americans. Enough exceptions to make racial (racist?) generalizations pointless.

    "Your generalizations are don't even have the beginnings of truth."

    Name one thing I got wrong. And it might be good to stick to facts. "Star Trek" is not relevant here unless you can tie it to one of the many plots they had about race on the different TV shows.

    Affirmative action can't balance the books because it tips them even more.

    "We enslaved people for 400 years."

    Who's "we?" I have never enslaved anyone for even one year, let alone 400. And I doubt you have either. As long as we are trying to look at what really happened, we should be accurate. As much as we toss out terms like "generational" crimes, these run into cold hard questions of whether or not any of the individuals being blamed actually did anything, or if any of the supposed victims were actually victimized.

    I'm also curious if any of your ancestors owned slaves. You said "our", but I wonder if you were being accurate. (This is why I brought up Lee Iacocca, well-known representive of the many millions of Americans descended from Ellis Island immigrants. Americans whose ancestors had nothing to do with the slavery of American Blacks. Facts are important, such as considerations if whether or not anyone's ancestors in fact owned slaves. If they didn't, the reasons for punishing them become even less sensible.

  39. And actually it must be pointed out that I was not putting forth generalizations. I was cutting through them.

  40. The reference to Star Trek means you live in a World of fiction, not facts. Oh, I already explained that.
    You made the statement that Colin Powell and Obama were representative of the average person in the black community. Wrong. As I also said before, a simple check of social statistics on the black community shows that, but don't bother checking just spew the fiction of your mind.
    I said it 3 times now, so it's obvious you cannot comprehend. Slavery is an American crime, not limited to recent ancestors, and the relief from that crime is still an American obligation. I guess you don't consider yourself an American. I smell racism from you. Denial is the first odor.

  41. Amazing. When Bush was president, hell, even Reagan, the right said "shut up and be a good patriot." Now they're all up in arms about a form that is required by our Constitution. In formation gathered from it is used by the public and all branches of government to better serve the people. But dammit! That darn Obama is president now so it must be a bad thing even though it was a good thing when a republican was president. You know. Like the stimulus and bailouts and Iraq and Afghanistan.

  42. Stop Destroying America!!!!

    I can hardly think or say anything about Obama and his administration without wanting to yell, swear, curse, spill hatred for his Socialist policies , and anything else foul and disgusting one can think up because these people are so arrogant, so obnoxious, so evil, it's impossible for one to think anything nice or good about any of them, nothing, not one thing.

    These liberal Socialist Democrat politicans don't give a damn about the America people or what we think, and these liberal Socialists politicans aren't interested in keeping America free.

    These liberal Socialist Democrat politicians want to dump on the constitution, to make it Scrap Paper, they want to change our present form of government our core beliefs of what America stands for: Freedom of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
    Just Look how some of these leftie “kooks” tried to destroy Bluepitbull, and run him off the blogisphere!!!I don’t know much about this Moran guy that calls himself Chairman MOA, but he certainly fits his screen name and his posts sounds as if he's an idiotic moron... And it didn't take too long for others to jump on that bandwagon.
    They wouldn't let him have a voice, and they wouldn't even let him have a blog.
    Good work my fellow Americans, I'm sure that some where some one is proud of you!

  43. "You made the statement that Colin Powell and Obama were representative of the average person in the black community."

    No, I did not. I used them as examples, and you know that. They are not representative. That was my whole point, about the diversity in background and economic status in "the black community" which foils any generalizations about them all being suffering descendants of slaves. And again and again you stick with this sloppy generalization of "the black community" now knowing the fact that many members of this community are prosperous and/or had ancestors who came to the US after the slavery period.

    "but don't bother checking just spew the fiction of your mind"

    Can you name one thing I said that was fiction? This is not the first time you have made such claims, and not the first time you didn't back it up.

    "I smell racism from you."

    I'm not the one generalizing on race. To use your accusation wording, perhaps the smell is coming from you.

    "and the relief from that crime is still an American obligation"

    Propose something reasonable that is not racist. And is accurate. One that ignores the generalization of "the black community" and deals with real descendants of slaves. One which is not designed to steal from innocent people and give to those whose ancestors had nothing to do with slavery. One which won't be used by blatantly racist hustlers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to get more riches and power.

  44. Truth said:

    "it was a good thing when a republican was president. You know. Like the stimulus and bailouts and Iraq and Afghanistan."

    Actually..... most conservatives/Republicans were strongly against the bailouts. And the thing about Afghanistan and Iraq shows more of the hypocrisy of the Left. They aren't complaining much now that it is Obama's war. I haven't seen one of those peace protests that happened several times a year in my town during the Bush years.

    I happen to think that it was good that Bush struck back against the terrorists, and it is good that the current President is continuing the fight.

  45. 20 cruise missles targeting Saddam's palaces would have taken care of that asshole Dmarks. But that would mean the Halliburton and Blackwater didn't get their big money contracts.

    And WTF are you talking about that the Left isn't complaining about the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations? I and every other Lib I know of in these parts is still getting on Obama for not getting us out of them.

    Read the comment I left at Tom the Redhunter's site yesterday.

    And ask McCain if he remembers suspending his campaign to help bail out the financial sector.

  46. McCain and Bush (and Palin too, as part of McCain's campaign) supported the bailout. But it was truly a majority effort from the left, and most Republicans opposed it.

  47. Of course the republicans were against TARP...they were losing the election.

    We can always expect sanity from the republicans when they have the majority...that is why the medicare prescription drug program was such an awesome idea! So, how many republicans stood up and asked how we were going to pay for that?

    Give a big tax cut then go on and spend money on medicare prescription drug and no child left behind...then follow up with another tax cut and a WAR!

    Yep, fiscal sanity on the right....

    Oh, war on terror....yep, everyone was all for going into Afghanistan and beating the shit out of the taliban and al qaeda...

    Some of us got lost when all of sudden we were in Iraq...never could figure out what Iraq had to do with terrorism...

    One thing I love about republicans....they count real good and they know when something is going to pass and won't need their vote....

    So, they can say they were against it.....while having their picture taken with the benefits...

    Nothing like buttering your toast on both sides at the same time...

    Its kind of like, Republicans and standing for family values.....

    then get caught with a hooker...

    then go ask people to pray for you...

    then repeat.

  48. "never could figure out what Iraq had to do with terrorism."

    It's easy. Saddam was a major world terrorism kingpin, hosting, funding, promoting, and supporting a large number of terrorist groups. Was. After 9/11, it made much less sense to let his terrorism, aggression, and major cease-fire violations continue. The "let the terrorists keep attacking us" mindset fell out of style.

    Those who "got lost" were probably those who had no idea where the place was on a map.

  49. Saddam hated Al Queda and they in turn hated him. What despot in the middle east doesn't support Hamas or Hezbollah though. Why didn't Bush order Saudi Arabia invaded?

    As an advocate of marajuana legalization, I hope Dmarks gives me some of the stuff he's been smokin when it becomes legal.

  50. It was a lot more than Hamas and Hesbollah. And while Saddam was not involved in 9/11, he did support Al Queda. It makes no sense to let a terrorist leader keep attacking us. Bush made the right call: fight back. Joe Biden and the Sec'y of State made the same call.

  51. Tom - Slavery is an international crime. Study your world history.

    Soo... if you wish to hate and condemn America also hate and condemn the slavery practiced in the Middle East, in Africa, in Europe, in Asia.... but no, you and your American hating cronies will be content to condemn only America.

    Wake up dude... America has it's faults of which slavery was one. And it was wrong, unequivocally. But once again my generation is not responsible for the wrongs of 400 years ago. I am responsible only or my own actions and none others.

    And by the way, what about the slave traders in Africa that sold their own brothers and sisters into slavery for profit dude. DO THEY BEAR ANY RESPONSIBILITY?

    Of course I will be very surprised if you give a rational answer to that question.

  52. I was talking about America dude. That was obvious since we were talking about the U.S. Census.
    Shove your smart ass remark.

  53. Clarence Thomas 'opposes' affirmative action programs (which benefited his career) because the real action for unprincipled opportunists such as him are on the right side of the aisle. Reactionary politics is where the money is and where careers are made. Thomas is no dummy. He is likely the most cynical public figure I can think of.

    Of course affirmative action didn't get him a law degree or exclude him from passing the bar exam. It merely provided him an opportunity.

    And speaking of 'race pimps' I seem to recall Mr Thomas introducing the completely over the top phrase 'high tech lynching' to the conversation.

    Now if only he 'earned' his place like the former President and countless mediocrities just like him who have governed our nation these past 225+ years. The 'guys' who pulled themselves up by their bootstraps.

    Another American myth.

  54. Most supporters of the occupation of Iraq simply omit any reference to Saddam Hussein's alleged links to Al Qaeda. When pressed they might mention the since discredited 'intelligence' turning contact into joint Iraqi/Al Qaeda 'operations' with little real conviction.

    But in the blogosphere one still finds the occasional true believer.

    And where did those WMDs get off to?

  55. Rational Nation USA said...
    Tom - Slavery is an international crime. Study your world history.

    Soo... if you wish to hate and condemn America also hate and condemn the slavery practiced in the Middle East, in Africa, in Europe, in Asia.... but no, you and your American hating cronies will be content to condemn only America.

    But. And this is important. A lot of people in this country believe in American exceptionalism. If you insist that other countries, like the USofA also dealt in slavery, then you're admitting this country was no better than any other nation when it came to facing that evil.

    However, Europe had stopped the slave trade well before our Civil War, so we were actually lagging in doing the right thing and stopping the evil.

    I think the argument, RN, is that too many people are too quick to trash other countries and say there is no nation better than this one, when the fact--that you point out yourself--is that it took us longer than Europe to right the evil of slavery.

    We finally did. But only after 600,000 Americans perished.

    That's not America bashing, that's telling the truth.

    We can't go though our narrow little lives denying our history.

    I believe admitting our faults will make us a stronger country, not a weaker one.

  56. Arthur: You are right about Thomas's dumb lynching comment.

    As for the WMD, between 50 and 500 were found after the invasion. Next subject.

  57. Demarks,

    According to the U.S. Army, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Sec. of State Colin Powell, Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld, the UN security forces, the U.S. Marines, and other more reliable sources than you, there were no WMD's found in Iraq after a 2 year physical search of the whole country. Star Trek is on!

  58. Karl Rove just wrote in his new book that no WMD's were found. And if Bush had known before the invasion that then he may have acted differently. Of course Rove is a liar so whom are we to believe Dmarks. Rove or you?

  59. Tom: I checked Fact Check.org. When Fact Check and the claims of the Bush administration disagree, I always side with Factcheck. It seems kind of strange to me that you tend to side with the Bush administration.

    "During its investigation, the ISG reported that "[a] total of 53 munitions have been recovered, all of which appear to have been part of pre-1991 Gulf war stocks based on their physical condition and residual components."

    "....discovered only a few random chemical weapons."

    These munitions technically count as WMD, by definition (despite the headline of the Factcheck page). And the presence of at least one of these makes the "there were no WMD" claim into a lie.

    There is also a Pentagon report that lists the total number at 500.

    You can safely make the claim that there weren't enough WMD to be a threat, or that there were too few. Or something like that. You just can't claim there were none.

    Regardless of whether or not the claim is made by Rove or the Bush-bashers who are out to run down Bush at any cost, even if it means taking the side of the terrorists.

    Tom: speaking of Star Trek, I'm still waiting for you refute just one of my claims in the discussion of racism. You said I had the facts wrong. But you never backed that up.

  60. Very "Clintonesque" answer Dmarks. Well done in that regard. Ad by your answer you are admitting the sissiness of Reagan for not bombing the hell out of Saddam. Oops! Wasn't it Reagan that armed this joker during his war with Iran whom Reagan didn't bomb the hell out of either even though kidnapped our citizens?

    You need to take a closer look at the side you're on Dmarks. You've always struck me as someone of integrity, albeit a deluded version. Be honest with yourslef man. Drop these clowns and use your skills to save America from them.

  61. Shaw: The Vermont Republic abolished slavery in 1777; Pennsylvania in 1780; Massachusetts ruled slavery illegal based on the 1780 Constitution in 1783; Connecticut and Rhode Island abolished slavery in 1784; New York abolished it in 1799. By 1804 all Northern states had abolished slavery and in 1808 all imports and exports of slavery were illegal in America. Granted, it took a Civil War for the Southern States to stop the “evil”, BUT, considering half the country had freed blacks on their own says something about our exceptionalism—maybe not as a nation as a whole, but as a PEOPLE in a nation.

  62. Truth: It wasn't. The aid from Reagan to Saddam was Saddam pretty small compared to aid from France, etc. There was nothing Clintonesque about my answer. Nothing like what the meaning of is is. Just pointing out the fact that the terrorist leader in Iraq still possessed WMD, a decade after cease-fire agreements in which he had agreed to get rid of them all. And he was still promoting terrorism, also a decade after the cease-fire agreement was supposed to have ended that too.

    "Drop these clowns"

    Somehow Beck comes to mind. Can you think of any time I've had anything good to say about Glenn Beck?

    Pamela said: "Granted, it took a Civil War for the Southern States to stop the “evil”

    Which happened to be a significant expenditure of blood and treasure during the 1860s to stop this "generational crime". Very significant, for those who argue that the US has not paid anything. For those who take the racist path and demand that the US pay people just for having a certain skin color.

  63. Saddam was no threat Dmarks. He even admitted that his rhetoric was a bluff toward the Iranians to keep them from trying anything.

    The bluff strategy is still used by many in the Middle East.

    I did appreciate how you tried to blame the French though.

  64. It's not a good idea to let someone keep attacking you and only do something about it when the aggressor reaches some sort of arbitrary "this is a serious threat" threshold.

    Yes, the French were actually one his major suppliers (not the US) and helped him with his nuclear bomb factory. You got us into the subject of who supplied him, so mentioning "blame the French" is only accurate.

  65. "Between 50 and 500 were found. Next question."

    Ah yes. A definitive answer.


    Heh. Heh.

    Just as Cuban construction workers armed to the teeth with shovels and rakes supported by backhoes, earth movers and pavers were considered a 'threat' back in 1983 so too are a few drums of cleaning fluid and insecticide found in Iraq (after the deaths of tens of thousands) deemed WMDs.

    Exaggerate. Exaggerate. Exaggerate.

    Bingo! Find the feeblest target imaginable. Unleash the most powerful military the world has ever seen and guess what?

    Mission Accomplished!

  66. Arthur said: "Ah yes. A definitive answer. Not."

    Both numbers are well above 1. 1 is the number that makes "there were no WMD" into a lie.

    No exaggeration at all involved.

    "Mission Accomplished!"

    True. But that did not happen until after the surge.

    "Bingo! Find the feeblest target imaginable."

    That is quite untrue, really. It might be true if the US retaliated against Andorra or Vatican City. But not if it retaliates against a country with one of the largest militaries on the planet. A "feeble" country that was executing tens of thousands of Iraqis a year as it was also involved in international terrorist aggression, and even firing on Americans in acts of unprovoked aggression.

  67. Fact checking this: In January of 2003, Saddam's army numbered well in excess of 350,000. This put it at #7 in the 2003 rankings. So much for "feeblest"... turns out that if you look at facts, all but 6 other nations were more feeble than Iraq.

  68. It took our Army about two weeks to win the war in Iraq Dmarks. So much for your theory of Iraqi army non feebleness.

  69. It wasn't a theory, it was a fact. Do you want a source for the link on Iraq's ranking of military might before 2003?

    (Also, in regards to your "two weeks" reference, this is the first time I've ever seen anyone at all pull some magic number out of the air that is a fraction of the war's actual length and use it. Like someone saying that WW2 ended on the second Friday after D-Day).

  70. You're confusing the occupation with the war Dmarks. Our forces won the war shortly after the invasion.

    Iraq was no threat. Saddam was a clown with no more than a squirt gun.

  71. No confusion:

    "Barack Obama declares end date for Iraq war" (The Guardian)

    "Jul 16, 2008 ... As the Iraq war winds down..." (Los Angeles Times).

    Two of many examples.

  72. "Iraq was no threat. Saddam was a clown with no more than a squirt gun."

    Nor was Bin Laden, a clown with a couple of box cutters. But 9/11 taught us it was not the best idea to let aggression from these clowns continue.

  73. Pamela - Thanks for your well informed response to the issue of slavery.

    Shaw - I am not denying the history of slavery in the U.S. My point is 1) See Pam's well accurate information, and 2) the bottom line is slavery was abolished completely in the 1860's.

    It took far to long before things started to change for blacks even after the end of slavery agree.

    However, this is 2010 and it is time we as a people move on and recognize that we are not responsible for the sins of those long gone from this life.

    We are in fact responsible for our own actions and not those of any other individual with respect to how we treat others.

    There are laws that deal with inappropriate actions by one individual,or group of individuals against another.

    When will it be time in the eyes of liberals that it is okay to move on?

    If not now then when?


  74. Also contradicting the idea that the war in Iraq ended a couple of weeks after the 2003 invasion is that the Battle of Falujah, one of the major operations of the war, took place a year after the "it ended a couple of weeks after the invasion" conclusion date.

  75. Rational Nation USA wondered:

    "When will it be time in the eyes of liberals that it is okay to move on?"

    Well. Once corporations stop discriminating in hiring and promotion practices. Once unions entirely dispense with discriminatory admission policies. Once banks stop predatory lending and red-lining based on race. Once potential renters/purchasers are no longer denied housing based on the color of their skin.

    Start here.

    I'm sure we can all add to the list.

    If we only give it a little thought.

  76. Hey! Where did Right is Right's comment go?

    I wanted to extend the Israeli grown olive branch of civility to her.

  77. I think we have had another moment of honesty:


    Now, lets all support Right is Right as she attempts to find her kinder and gentler side....

  78. Truth said:

    "As usual Dmarks, the pack is behind me."

    Whatever's in it, you'll probably have to empty it all out next time you go through airport security.

    In the mean time, read this quite reasonable recent column by moderate pundit Thomas Friedman.

  79. Back on to the subject at hand, and if it wasn't for dmarks we probably would never tread so far off topic....

    I got my census today and I note that for race there was no place for me to put "Leninist" Pam would you be so kind as to get with RAtional Nation USA and ask him where I should put that information?
    Or should I put "leftist"

    Will that make me eligible for social security disability?

  80. Tao: The answer for “Race” is AMERICAN, you silly goose!

    I got mine today too, but I'm in no hurry to fill it out. I'll do it for Saturday's mail pick up.

  81. Going back to this slavery thing, I wanted to point out that although we 'freed' blacks in 1860 or whatever 18th or 19th century date you'd like to dredge up, it was a strange definition of 'free'.

    Could they vote? Could they live wherever they wanted? Could they go to whatever church they wanted? Could they get whatever job they were qualified for? Could they marry whomever they wished? (Check to see when the last miscegenation laws were repealed.) Could they eat at the same restaurant counter? Could they go to school with white kids, or even go to school at all?

    What kind of freedom is this? It's freedom in name only... it was a law that appeased consciences, soothed guilt, gave people something to preen over and feel self-righteous about, that they'd supported the abolition of the evil of slavery, and freed all those poor souls.

    But was it freedom really?

    Maybe in a relative sense, but in no way was it any sort of 'equality'.

    It was as recently as 1970 that in a town 25 miles from here a black man was beaten and shot dead in the street in front of dozens of witnesses by a white man. Testimony by black witnesses was not taken, and the man was not arrested until two days later.

    He was acquitted by an all-white jury.

    Riots ensued and just a few weeks ago it was released as a movie, which is still such a raw wound in this area that they weren't able to film here.

    So, for all the 'freedom', was it really, truly free?

  82. Hey Dmarks: the link you provided took me to my blog. I agree that I am quite rational. Thank you.

    We won the war in Iraq. It's the occupation we're having trouble with my friend. Fallujah was a riot situation. Not a war. Wars involve countries.

  83. It was supposed to be Thomas Friedman's recent column.

  84. RATIONAL NATION wrote: "Shaw - I am not denying the history of slavery in the U.S. My point is 1) See Pam's well accurate information, and 2) the bottom line is slavery was abolished completely in the 1860's.

    It took far to long before things started to change for blacks even after the end of slavery agree."

    RN, if you go back and reread my comment, you'll see I wrote nothing about blame and slavery.

    My comment was in answer to what your wrote here:

    Tom - Slavery is an international crime. Study your world history.

    Soo... if you wish to hate and condemn America also hate and condemn the slavery practiced in the Middle East, in Africa, in Europe, in Asia.... but no, you and your American hating cronies will be content to condemn only America.

    I merely pointed out that those who crow about American exceptionalism need to understand that Europe had stopped the slave trade long before we did.

    I wrote nothing about blame.

    You brought that up.

  85. Really? Seriously? Europe had plenty more to worry about at that time.

    BTW, we weren't the last bastions of slavery. True slavery is still practiced today in Africa. As far as formal western slavery, that burden goes to Brazil.

    If you want to blame someone for the deplorable conditions blacks endured from emancipation through 1964, blame Washington. Reconstruction didn't last very long.

  86. Truth 101 typed:

    "Wars involve countries."

    Not anymore they don't. We fixed that problem October 7, 2001.

  87. Yeah, Arthur. Not sure what he meant. Wars take place in countries, but many of them only involve one country. Such as civil wars.

  88. Also, slavery lasted in Europe in a big way all throughout the 20th century. So much for them having "abolished" it. The socialist regimes of Nazi Germany and also of the Soviet bloc employed slave labor extensively.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...