But Meade — a Hoosier, much friendlier than I am — talked to the man for what was, to me, a puzzling length of time. Of course, Meade refused to do the survey or part with the saliva, but he did receive these papers:
"Questions like age and education, drinking, medicine and drug use, mood, anxiety, behavior and medical conditions and personality." No way! Yet over 100,000 people have participated. $90 is an impressive amount of money, perhaps especially to people with alcohol problems. As Meade said later, you could buy a lot of gin for $90. I'm irked as a taxpayer. Is this a federal jobs program to tide over erstwhile census workers?
Above, you see the little brochure, and Meade was also given this copy of a letter that was previously sent in the mail to soften us up for government interrogation. I vaguely remember tossing it right in the
Interestingly, the softening-up letter doesn't mention the part where the government's independent contractor makes you spit in a tube. It also refers only to alcohol and alcohol-related mental issues. Unlike the brochure, it doesn't mention drug use. It does, however, boldface the $90. You get $45 to sit for the interview, but $45 is withheld until you get to "the end."
But "It's okay to skip questions you don't want to answer for any reason." So, you're answering questions and then there's one you don't want to answer? Speaking of anxiety! And then they want the saliva sample. By the way, one of the mood/behavior issues around drug and alcohol use is lying. Presumably, they will detect that.
But don't worry, this is for "research purposes only." We're assured our personal information will be stripped away. What? Are you paranoid? How does that paranoia relate to your drug/alcohol use?
The government simply wants to "decide how best to use money and staff to solve national health problems." How about not handing out hundreds of thousands of pairs of $45 checks to collect data from the kind of people who don't know how to say no to a government that manipulates them into surrendering their freedom for a handout?
ADDED: Meade tells me the man said the saliva was for DNA, something about checking one's ancestry for alcohol (and drug?) related problems.
Posts
317 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 317 of 317Under Obama home ownership has declined by x% and the housing market is off from last years number by x%.
That's stuff we as conservatives should know. It's certainly what we are holding Obama to.
It's funny you think any of these would be held against Obama. He is a symbol.
Darrell wrote:
You know how easy it would be to link you to a crime if they had your DNA? No, they wouldn't have to physically plant your DNA in the evidence room. All they would have to do is substitute your DNA analysis for the DNA profile that came up when the sample from the unknown donor (perp) was tested.
I'm not disagreeing, but collecting DNA as if it were a sample in a poll is not a particularly efficient means of getting people's DNA. You can't average out DNA, you either have it or you don't. So even if every single respondent willingly submitted their DNA you have a database consisting of only 60000 names. How many people in the country haven't submitted their DNA?
So then in order to use this as a weapon against people they'd have to get lucky enough to have one of those 60000 people actually commit a crime.
EMD wrote:
Under Obama home ownership has declined by x% and the housing market is off from last years number by x%.
That's stuff we as conservatives should know. It's certainly what we are holding Obama to.
It's funny you think any of these would be held against Obama. He is a symbol.
the media may not hold him to account, but we sure as hell should.
There a lots of ways DNA is collected-- this is just one of them. And with an ongoing program, next year 60,000 more samples (or more) will be collected.
Ex-alcoholics, children and relatives of alcoholics are likely to be happy to participate.
The hell you say. The last thing I need, as an adult child of an alcoholic, is for for some busybody government agency to deny me my civil rights (say, for example, the right to own a firearm) because I may or may not have a genetic predisposition to alcoholism. Or, HIPAA notwithstanding, provide that information to any insurance company I may do business with.
Thanks but no thanks.
Michelle Dulak Thomspson wrote:
Again, the government, IMO, can ask for race only after strictly defining it. Which it, quite rightly, will not.
Do you think we should look at education stats to see if blacks are graduating or undererforming? Why are we allowed to define people by race there?
Darrell wrote:
There a lots of ways DNA is collected-- this is just one of them. And with an ongoing program, next year 60,000 more samples (or more) will be collected.
True, but its not efficient. and here it's totally voluntary, and you would only run into problems if you actually commited a crime. The easy rememdy then would be don't give your spit and dont commit crimes.
@ Jr565...Classes are classified s they can be treated differently. That is the definition of bigotry.
Whether the excuse is to target affirmative action against me for my ancestor's assumed class, or the need is gathering statistics to feed into a "Scientific Fantasia computer model" to justify stealing from me, I respectfully resist you and refuse to fall into line under under the Arbeiten Macht Frei signs erected by the ruling Party.
Shanna wrote:
People just disagree on the ‘need’. You can get demo’s without using the census through surveys. Census demo’s are generally many years out of date anyway.
But why does it matter who is collecting the data and in what manner? Isn't it the collection of the data that is at issue?
Don't worry, the spy cams on every computer is coming.
traditional guy wrote:
Whether the excuse is to target affirmative action against me for my ancestor's assumed class, or the need is gathering statistics to feed into a "Scientific Fantasia computer model" to justify stealing from me, I respectfully resist you and refuse to fall into line under under the Arbeiten Macht Frei signs erected by the ruling Party.
I am not for affirmative action based along racial lines. Doesn't mean that the data is still not important to collect.
You can't assign resources without knowing what resources are needed as well as know where they should be sent.
What neighborhoods need schools, old age homes, highways, which are poor which are rich.
Simply knowing that information doesn't mean i'm advocating STEALING from you. It could mean your neighborhood could be getting more resources.
Anyone who has ever served in the military already had their DNA taken. Same with most LEOs. Same with anyone who submitted samples for paternity testing and other legal and medical issues. Now it is just a matter of which databases can be accessed by Gov't--especially groups like Homeland Sec. and the NSA. Note the recent cases of Gov't saying that they are not doing something and it turns out that they were actually doing it all along. Back in the 1980s, State Gov'ts (Sec. of State's) started to collect more detailed information from car owners. A bit later, people started to receive all kinds of advertising in the mail. It turned out that your friends in Gov't started to sell info. to market research firms for as little as 5 cents per person. With those privacy laws some things have changed. But I wouldn't trust any of the cocksuckers in Gov't as far as I could throw them. When shit hits the fan, they were "hacked." Bo blame. No accountability.
traditional guy wrote:
Classes are classified s they can be treated differently. That is the definition of bigotry.
Just becuase they can be treated diffrently doesn't mean that they will. Simply noting the trends through demography is not an endorsement of any particular policy that addresses those trends.
Darrell wrote:
Anyone who has ever served in the military already had their DNA taken.
So then the takeaway is, don't join the military?
jr565, if you don't want to find your jawbone flapping in the breeze, stay off my porch. It's that easy. My data is my own and it's none of your business, Comrade. And keep off the lawn, too, while you're at it.
JR565...You are suddenly selling the carrot of free money allocations in response to my bringing up the well known certain results from Marxist Party rule.
Where does that money come from? The Classifiers are flat out of money.
But they can steal money from the 401K owning Kulaks whose retirement funds can be collectivized...which is Obama's current strategy, as you must know.
Do you think we should look at education stats to see if blacks are graduating or undererforming? Why are we allowed to define people by race there?
Let me expand on that. if we ONLY looked at blacks and whether they were underperforming that would be racial.
But are we not looking at test scores and trying to determine what those results mean? Are people actually graduating? Then, of those peopel graduating is it more women graduating or more men graduating. Is there a particular issue with say blacks not graduating or hispanics not graduating.
We all cite statistics on whether the education system is working or not based on these numbers. We can all recognize the definitions of race when we are saying for example that "blacks seem to be dropping out of school at much higher rates than whites". Irregardless of policy proposals, thats kind of important information to know. Saying everyone is the same and are all Americans may be valid when it comes to how you identify YOURSELF, but not when it comes to dealing with social issues.
ie. I dont think blacks shouldn't identify as African American primarily, they should instead identify as Americans, who happens to be black. But that is a personal identification.
If it comes to a question of what's the state of education today, are blacks doing well or poorly in school, you kind of have to divide along racial lines for the purpose of answering the question.
But why does it matter who is collecting the data and in what manner? Isn't it the collection of the data that is at issue?
It ALWAYS matters who is collecting the data. The ISSUE is what are they going to do WITH the data.
You can't assign resources without knowing what resources are needed as well as know where they should be sent.
What neighborhoods need schools, old age homes, highways, which are poor which are rich.
Simply knowing that information doesn't mean i'm advocating STEALING from you. It could mean your neighborhood could be getting more resources.
Try to understand. We do NOT want the government to "assign resources" based on what race people are, or other demographics We don't want them to TAKE money from one group of people to transfer to another that it deems to be more needy, worthy or to buy votes. This is NOT the function of the Federal Government....to take money from the people in one State or area and gift it to other people.
None of your examples of allocating tax dollars is a function of the Federal Government. The State Government perhaps, maybe, slightly. The local people certainly...>IF they want to volunteer to contribute.
Stealing from me means taking my money involuntarily. Whether you are stealing from me for some deluded Robin Hood fantasy or for your own personal gain, is immaterial. You are stealing our money.
Classes are classified so they can be treated differently. That is the definition of bigotry.
Bigotry. Just because you feel benevolent about being a bigot doesn't make it any less bigotry.
Darrell wrote:
jr565, if you don't want to find your jawbone flapping in the breeze, stay off my porch. It's that easy. My data is my own and it's none of your business, Comrade. And keep off the lawn, too, while you're at it.
Hey if you don't want to answer the census it's on you. Though you will be fined if you dont. If you dn't want to spit in a cup, they probalby wont come to your house anyway and even if they did you could just say no.
Elderly people can be found on entitlement roles. Alcohol sales can be gleened from liquor store and bar sales. And DUIs and hospital reports. Nothing beyond that is anyone's business. That's why they have the big fines associated with problems, WHEN they occur. They in themselves are a gov't profit center. The gov't gets all the data they need when poeple apply for bennies. Fire out all the useless cocksuckers collecting and analyzing the data and ordering its collection, and they can send everyone a check. In the mail.
Dust Bunny Queen wrote:
It ALWAYS matters who is collecting the data. The ISSUE is what are they going to do WITH the data.
Not when it's the difference of the state collecting the data, or the federal govt collecting the data. It's still govt collecting data. And what they are going to do with the data is immaterial to the idea of collecting data. You don't have to use the data for collectivization or wealth redistribution.
THere was a census under Ronald Reagan too.
It's like state, county & local governments don't exist.
They don't know what's going on in their communities, only Big Daddy does every 10 years.
The only part of the census that's necessary is head count.
That was it 7 page monstrosity was not necessary.
They were fishing.
So I see there is quite a following for the "it's for your own good" routine. I'm surprised people still fall for that. You can look at any place where government overreaches, or basically ruins something good and decent, and you will find that it had its start with that argument. It always works because a lot of people aren't just suckers for it - they don't merely agree - they become evangelicals about it.
Then when it turns into something nasty, they say: "Our hearts were in the right place, and how were we to know somebody would come along and misuse it or turn it into this?"
It's simple - because they always do.
Dust Bunny Queen wrote:
Try to understand. We do NOT want the government to "assign resources" based on what race people are, or other demographics We don't want them to TAKE money from one group of people to transfer to another that it deems to be more needy, worthy or to buy votes. This is NOT the function of the Federal Government....to take money from the people in one State or area and gift it to other people.
SOrry, there has been a federal govt under Ronald Reagan and any republcan as well. It may be bloated, it may be the problem and not the solution, but it is there. And you pay your taxes, and then the govt both federal and local allocates resources.
I never said the federal govt should GIFT the money from one state to another. You're paying federal taxes as an individual. Those taxes fund govt, which in turn uses it to allocate where it prioritizes the need. I will certainly agree that govt is too large, and bloated, but that doesn't mean that govt isn't what it is.
True, but its not efficient.
A nationwide door to door survey is many things, but 'efficient' sure as hell isn't one of them!
Via Drudge:
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- The last call for drinks is 2 a.m. in California, but one lawmaker believes that's just too early to set down the shot glasses and beer steins.
State Sen. Mark Leno's proposal to let the liquor flow until 4 a.m. as a way to draw more tourists - and with them more revenue and jobs - is already spawning a sharp debate from Sacramento to watering holes in San Francisco and Los Angeles....
Seeing Red wrote:
It's like state, county & local governments don't exist.
They don't know what's going on in their communities, only Big Daddy does every 10 years.
isnt the census constitutionally required? I thought you were a fan of the constitution.
But why does it matter who is collecting the data and in what manner? Isn't it the collection of the data that is at issue
No, it isn't. Lots of people collect data, it's what they do with it that is the problem. Government has policing power, law passing power, etc. Much more room for error.
Government knowledge of shifting racial demographics can facilitate future law enforcement staffing and location decisions. This has long been known.
Government knowledge of shifting racial demographics can facilitate future law enforcement staffing and location decisions. This has long been known.
Via Drudge:
Congress’s top auditor said Tuesday that the Commerce Department has been charging other government agencies millions of dollars for reports that the other agencies could just as easily have gotten online, for free.
The Government Accountability Office, releasing its third annual report on duplication in the federal government, said 74 percent of all the reports held by the National Technical Information Service were available elsewhere, usually for free — and often just by a simple Google search.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/9/search-error-audit-finds-feds-pay-data-they-could-/#ixzz2PzwoTP5x
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
the Commerce Department has been charging other government agencies millions of dollars
Glad it was their money, not taxpayers'!
LOLOLOLOL
What part of the census am I fine with?
jr565,
Do you think we should look at education stats to see if blacks are graduating or under[p]erforming? Why are we allowed to define people by race there?
Well, I think we ought not, unless we are willing, as a society, to say who is "black" and who is not; who is "Asian-American" and who is not; who is "Native American" and who is not.
Race is unscientific and undefined. You are the son of a black African father and a white mother, and you are "black." You are the son of a Thai mother and a father of mixed black/white/NA heritage, and you are, to most people, "black." You are the son of a white father and a Hispanic mother and you are, interestingly, a "white Hispanic," though you do not rate as a "black Hispanic" if you hail from, say, the Dominican Republic and are in major league baseball. (People who come from Central America and have dark complexions are not going to be stopped for "driving while Hispanic," but baseball still has totally, absolutely no black people.)
If you are the child of an Englishman (let's keep this simple here) and a Chinese national, what are you, race-wise? Anyone want propose a rubric?
Shanna wrote:
No, it isn't. Lots of people collect data, it's what they do with it that is the problem. Government has policing power, law passing power, etc. Much more room for error.
Shouldn't govt collect data before passing laws? Shouldn't govt collect data before s;ending money? Are you seriously arguing that the govt as run by libertarians would collect no data? And you think libertarians should actually run govt, let alone a lemonade stand?
It's a shame we can't have a national voter ID card, it would give us a more accurate picture, no?
Imagine you work for a small private company and you tell your boss you just figured out a way to save your department a bunch of money by eliminating duplication and that it would reduce your department's budget by half. Excited to tell him about your idea? Maybe get a raise or a promotion?
Now imagine you work for a government agency. Still excited?
OMG, jr, your last post is a riot.
The United States Military expects its employees to respond the way Jr565 advises us to respond: shut up and accept your orders. Soldiers always answer surveys and questions because they are ordered to do so by their Commanding Officer.
But I am a free man under orders from no man except lawful authorities that must respect my rights under the Bill of Rights.
Now what are Apparatchiks going to do to assert bigotry authority? Maybe start a war? That was tried by LBJ that in 1965, but it did not go well.
jr565,
Michelle Dulak Thomspson wrote:
That is the most spectacular version of my name I've seen. The added "p," very often. The added "s," never. Congrats!
jr565, You don't really believe the government could run a lemonade stand, do you? What do think the price of that lemonade would be, including government subsidies, market research, EPA studies, etc.? $75/glass? $100?
Shanna wrote:
No, it isn't. Lots of people collect data, it's what they do with it that is the problem. Government has policing power, law passing power, etc. Much more room for error.
republicans or even libertarians might win the next election and will then have to spend federal dollars. And you think, because there is room for error, that they should rely on no data whatsoever in determining how to spend those dollars.
Seeing Red wrote:
It's a shame we can't have a national voter ID card, it would give us a more accurate picture, no?
Its republicans pushing this. That's govt collecting data!
I guess then the libertarians on this board are probably in the same camp as letting every vote count liberals.
Nomennovum said...
Hi Grandpa!!!
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
You wish.
Would a "dope" assume I am actually a Grandpa and that my name is Mark?
Are you seriously arguing that the govt as run by libertarians would collect no data?
You move the goal posts every post. First it's National ID, then Census then any data ever.
Our census should be one constitutionally required question 'how many people live here' filled on a postcard. States are a different entity, closer and much easier to control than federal govt.
bagoh20 wrote:
r565, You don't really believe the government could run a lemonade stand, do you? What do think the price of that lemonade would be, including government subsidies, market research, EPA studies, etc.? $75/glass? $100?
This president certainly can't. But what are you suggesting that the govt shouldn't run the economy? You're going to have to change a lot of laws to get that to happen, and would be social engineering changes far more drastic than many that liberals are pushing. You'd probably have to change the constitution while you were at it.
The better question is, can govt run the economy BETTER than it is running it now. And, of course it can.
Reagan said govt was the problem not the solution, but Reagans federal govt still ran the economy.
Shanna wrote:
Our census should be one constitutionally required question 'how many people live here' filled on a postcard. States are a different entity, closer and much easier to control than federal govt.
Should be? Where in the constitution does it say what questions are supposed to be asked on the census?
Its republicans pushing this.
OMG you have gone a bit bonkers on this thread. Republicans are not pushing anything like what you're saying. The VAST majority of people in the states already have a government id. If you count expired ID's the numbers are even higher. Requiring that they show an ID when voting so as to ensure that they only vote once is a far cry from requiring any of the things you are talking about.
It's all about setting appropriate limits.
Heres a census form from the 40's. that's 73 years ago:
http://1940census.archives.gov/questions-asked/
Note they are still asking the sex question and they even have a box about race. Not to mention whether you attended highs chool. Whether you own or rent. Whether you have a farm. Whether you work. what your income is.
This is a census taken long before I was born and probalby long before most people on this board were alive either talking about how the only thing they have a right to know is your name and the number of people in the household.
"Where in the constitution does it say what questions are supposed to be asked on the census?"
Article 1, Second 2, Clause 3. It says simple to count the whole numbers of free persons, every ten years. Look it up.
Shanna wrote:
Requiring that they show an ID when voting so as to ensure that they only vote once is a far cry from requiring any of the things you are talking about.
And how did they get their ID? They had to provide information - TO THE GOVERNMENT.
DBQ we are kindred spirits. I have been refusing to participate with the Census Bureaus nonsense since I turned 21. I am now 71. I have found they are wiling to go to abut 4 levels of escalated pseudo threats before they just melt into the ether.
DBQ we are kindred spirits. I have been refusing to participate with the Census Bureaus nonsense since I turned 21. I am now 71. I have found they are wiling to go to abut 4 levels of escalated pseudo threats before they just melt into the ether.
Here's a census form from 1890, long before The New Deal Even:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1890_United_States_Census
Still asking for more than just your name.
They just want to give you $90. They won't do anything with the information or the spit, it will just sit there until it is thrown away. The idea is to pay the person walking around knocking on doors and to pay you $90.
Michael Wrote:
They just want to give you $90. They won't do anything with the information or the spit, it will just sit there until it is thrown away. The idea is to pay the person walking around knocking on doors and to pay you $90.
Yes, exactly.
Liberal the low information voters.
Libertarians the no information voters.
" But what are you suggesting that the govt shouldn't run the economy? You're going to have to change a lot of laws to get that to happen, and would be social engineering changes far more drastic than many that liberals are pushing.".
I suppose you would also tell me that because of all the regulations involved that the government actually drives my car for me. You're just being silly, with all this stretching of points to the absurd. Government runs the economy the way your 3 year old in the back seat helps with the driving. I've run a business through decades of recession and boom and the government never showed up to help even once. They have shown up plenty, mostly to collect their share. I don't call that running things, and business like mine is the majority of the economy. You confuse the academic and media idea of an economy with the real thing.
bagoh20 wrote:
I suppose you would also tell me that because of all the regulations involved that the government actually drives my car for me. You're just being silly, with all this stretching of points to the absurd. Government runs the economy the way your 3 year old in the back seat helps with the driving. I've run a business through decades of recession and boom and the government never showed up to help even once. They have shown up plenty, mostly to collect their share. I don't call that running things, and business like mine is the majority of the economy. You confuse the academic and media idea of an economy with the real thing.
WHen I say they control the economy I generally meant, they control the aspects of the economy that govt has controlled since certainly my time alive. Not that they should run the companies. They set monetary policy, they pass various regulations, the set the tax rate etc.
SO, Im not disagreeing with you on that point bagoh.
You're just being silly, with all this stretching of points to the absurd.
As far as I can tell, he just wants to rant about libertarians. Because any concern about overreach = flat out crazy libertarian land. There is a WORLD of middle ground here.
traditionalguy wrote:
The United States Military expects its employees to respond the way Jr565 advises us to respond: shut up and accept your orders. Soldiers always answer surveys and questions because they are ordered to do so by their Commanding Officer.
But I am a free man under orders from no man except lawful authorities that must respect my rights under the Bill of Rights.
If you joined the militar you would give your DNA. You don't have to join the military
jr565,
Note they are still asking the sex question and they even have a box about race. Not to mention whether you attended highs chool. Whether you own or rent. Whether you have a farm. Whether you work. what your income is.
This is a census taken long before I was born and probalby long before most people on this board were alive either talking about how the only thing they have a right to know is your name and the number of people in the household.
The constitutional mandate for the census is to enumerate the population. That's it. That it's been used for a long time to gather other data is true, but counting the population is the point, and the sole constitutional justification.
You want some demographic data? Go form your own survey team and design your own survey instrument. I'm with DBQ: All the census ought to ask is how many people are under this roof. That, they have a perfect right to know.
Dust Bunny wrote:
Try to understand. We do NOT want the government to "assign resources" based on what race people are, or other demographics
I dont either. Im talking about determining the needs of a community based on the data provided. So, it might be determined that one region has far more old people than another. As such they might need more resources devoted to old people than the region that is primarily young. So more hospitals might be required in one region than another. maybe more cops are needed in one spot than another. Even though we are all Americans, places are not uniformly the same, and require a different allocation of resources. Many of that determination would additionally be handled on a local level. THey are still making their decisions based on census data or data similar to census data.
Michelle Dulak wrote:
You want some demographic data? Go form your own survey team and design your own survey instrument. I'm with DBQ: All the census ought to ask is how many people are under this roof. That, they have a perfect right to know.
I dont have to. That's why we have a census.
And at any rate, if I did, wouldn't I run into the same issue as this study is running into? Namely, I'd have to go door to door and get information. Who am I?
And if I were to get my demographic data it would be called something else - Marketing. Companies do it all the time.
You don't have to answer surveys for private companies, you are supposed to answer questions on the Census or at least the Census itself.
Michelle Dulak wrote:
Well, I think we ought not, unless we are willing, as a society, to say who is "black" and who is not; who is "Asian-American" and who is not; who is "Native American" and who is not.
Race is unscientific and undefined. You are the son of a black African father and a white mother, and you are "black." You are the son of a Thai mother and a father of mixed black/white/NA heritage, and you are, to most people, "black." You are the son of a white father and a Hispanic mother and you are, interestingly, a "white Hispanic," though you do not rate as a "black Hispanic" if you hail from, say, the Dominican Republic and are in major league baseball. (People who come from Central America and have dark complexions are not going to be stopped for "driving while Hispanic," but baseball still has totally, absolutely no black people.)
So wait, Obama wasnt really the first African American president? And George Zimmerman really is white hispanic?
Would a "dope" assume I am actually a Grandpa and that my name is Mark? - "GrandpaMark"
My bad. Shall I call you Steve?
Why are republicans against social security? Demographics say it will implode as the baby boomers retire. How do we know this? Demographics from census data (and data like it)
Like this:
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/population/cb08-123.html
That is demographic data used AGAINST a govt program. But if you think that somehow the data shoudlnt even be gathered, you have no basis arguing against SS, like most repubs do, along demographic lines.
Mark Steyn wrote, demographics is destiny. I bet most libertarians aren't reading him. Or they probably are even agreeing with him, not recognizing that said demographics he's referring to is the same stuff that they are arguing here doesn't matter and you refuse to give.
Michelle Dulak wrote:
Well, I think we ought not, unless we are willing, as a society, to say who is "black" and who is not; who is "Asian-American" and who is not; who is "Native American" and who is not.
Race is unscientific and undefined.
So can you have minorities as defined by race? Like are Whites the minority in Africa and blacks the majority, or can you not define people by race enough to actually differentiate minorities along skin tone lines.
But what are you suggesting that the govt shouldn't run the economy?
Yes. That IS what we re suggesting. The Government shouldn't even try to RUN the economy. That isn't the function of the US Government, the State Government or event the little Local Governmental agencies.
The Government can institute policies that may affect the economy either positively or negatively, as so aptly illustrated by Obama's kill the economy philosophy.
The the Government does not RUN the economy. It CAN'T run the economy. It might as well try to nail Jello to a tree as to try to control the economy. No one can do that... for any length of time anyway. The economy is a large dynamic system. Jello.
The best thing the Government can do is get the hell out of the way.
jr565,
So wait, Obama wasnt really the first African American president? And George Zimmerman really is white hispanic?
Oh, please. We all know that Bill Clinton was the first Black President. I mean, he played the saxophone and liked junk food. Toni Morrison said so. What more do you want?
And George Zimmerman was that embarrassing sort of Hispanic whose name doesn't clue you in. Can't you all take the Hispanic partner's name, already, so that you're all tidily Jiminez and Gonzales and the like, so that we don't have to rewrite our copy on finding that, oh, bummer, the guy we typed as Joe Redneck, George Zimmerman, is half-Peruvian?
Seriously, folks, "Hispanic" isn't a race, and "white Hispanic" is a roundabout way of saying "hey, we thought it was a redneck killing a black kid, but now it appears to be a little more complicated." Stupid inconvenient Peruvian parent!
the media may not hold him to account, but we sure as hell should.
Lot of good that's doing.
I paid $200 to have my DNA analyzed, by the National Geographic Genographic program. It said that I was a German, which is what my mother had told me all along.
Who knew when we signed up for our SS card which requires us to fill in our birth date, have money taken out of our paychecks, that the government can't make any projections until we take a census every 10 years to figure out how old people are?
And when they might retire?
It's amazing we get any stats at all in the intervening years.
Hispanic wrote:
There is no such thing as Hispanic.
Tell that to a Hispanic.
Tell a black person that he isnt really black.
And if you don't think Hispanics are a race does that mean you do think that whites are a race? Because you do seem to be distinguishing Hispanics from other races which are in fact races.
Look, we can view other people as being the same and arguing that ultimately color doest matter. But that doest mean it doesn't exist.
jhr565,
o can you have minorities as defined by race? Like are Whites the minority in Africa and blacks the majority, or can you not define people by race enough to actually differentiate minorities along skin tone lines.
Why are you calling them "minorities" before even counting them? And how are you proposing to go about classifying people by race? Have we got some equivalent of those paint-shop test strips that can be applied to human skin? Is there software that can analyze the extent to which your pointy eyes point up, or down?
Do we want to be in this place? I don't think so.
Seeing red wrote:
Who knew when we signed up for our SS card which requires us to fill in our birth date, have money taken out of our paychecks, that the government can't make any projections until we take a census every 10 years to figure out how old people are?
I never said that the census was the only way you can view demographics. Demographics show changes over
Time. What percentage of the population was white in 1850, what percentage is white in 1950. How has the country changed. What percentage of people earn under 30000 versus over 30000? How many
Women are
Working versus not working.Stuff like that. Those types of questions determine policy. Where do you think people get such data, by pulling it out of their ass? And to suggest that such considerations are so immaterial as to not even merit consideration by society (read govt) is
Beyond dumb.
Leftists get demographics fine. Why are they more informed than libertarians on this?
Michelle wrote,
Why are you calling them "minorities" before even counting them? And how are you proposing to go about classifying people by race? Have we got some equivalent of those paint-shop test strips that can be applied to human skin? Is there software that can analyze the extent to which your pointy eyes point up, or down?
so there can be no minorities in your word. Where are you living bizarro world?
Minorities are minorities because you did count them
. Minorities means fewer. You can only determine a minority if you count everybody and then see which division has more and which has less.
Michelle wrote:
Why are you calling them "minorities" before even counting them? And how are you proposing to go about classifying people by race? Have we got some equivalent of those paint-shop test strips that can be applied to human skin? Is there software that can analyze the extent to which your pointy eyes point up, or down?
how do you divide dogs by breed? It can't be done since they're just dogs deep down. Yet we can all distinguish a Labrador from a chihuahua.
jr565,
Minorities are minorities because you did count them. Minorities means fewer. You can only determine a minority if you count everybody and then see which division has more and which has less.
"White males" is a "minority" in the US, and probably has been for a century-plus.
so there can be no minorities in your word. Where are you living bizarro world?
I'm living in the United States. What about you?
Michelle wrote:
"White males" is a "minority" in the US, and probably has been for a century-plus.
I thought there was no color so how are you determining that males are white?
I'm living in the United States. What about you?
in the US blacks are a minority if you haven't heard.
jr565,
I dont either. Im talking about determining the needs of a community based on the data provided. So, it might be determined that one region has far more old people than another. As such they might need more resources devoted to old people than the region that is primarily young. So more hospitals might be required in one region than another. maybe more cops are needed in one spot than another.
Oh, hey, it could happen. Whole regions of the country might become populated entirely by old people.
Can there be a first black president in Michelle's world? Since technically there is no color?
jr565,
I haven't the foggiest idea how to determine who is "white." I can guarantee, though, that however you do it, "white males" will be a minority, because women outnumber men in 49 of 50 US states.
Michelle Dulak wrote:
Oh, hey, it could happen. Whole regions of the country might become populated entirely by old people.
I never said ENTIRELY. But you can have regions where there are more old people the young people or more old people than say the town next door.
Do you think we can have red states and blue states for example? Does that mean that EVERY single person in that state is either red or blue? Can you have any classifications at all?
Michelle wrote:
jr565,
I haven't the foggiest idea how to determine who is "white." I can guarantee, though, that however you do it, "white males" will be a minority, because women outnumber men in 49 of 50 US states.
and yet people who are black seem to identify themselves as black. Why is that? Maybe they're noticing something you're not.
jr565,
Can there be a first black president in Michelle's world? Since technically there is no color?
Well, the "first black president" in Toni Morrison's world was Bill Clinton. But she doesn't know jack shit about what it means to be black, does she?
"Technically there is no color"? Of course there isn't. It's absurd to pretend otherwise.
So then how did the slavemasters know which people would be slaves?
So if you have a "white" guy standing next to an "Asian" standing next to a "black" guy you don't actually notice any differences?
If a black guy were walking down a street in China no Chinese person would notice that there was a black guy walking down the street because there is no color.
Michelle wrote:
Well, the "first black president" in Toni Morrison's world was Bill Clinton. But she doesn't know jack shit about what it means to be black, does she?
it sounds like you're saying she doesn't.because yore saying there is no color. She's identified herself as black, if I were going to make a list of black authors i and almost everyone else would include her in that list.yet clearly, since there is no color she doesn't know jack shit about it because she's assuming she is something that doesnt exist.
Now, as far as Clinton being the first black president that is Toni Morrison saying he is black culturally not racially. And here she is wrong. There is no such thing as an authentic black person. (Or white person)
THey are still making their decisions based on census data or data similar to census data.
Nobody in their right minds would base all of that on census data because it's TOO OLD. 10 years is forever as far as those things go.
Maybe its the vocabulary that is imprecise enough. If we refer to the race of humans as the human race can members of that race be considered a race? Perhaps we should refer to "races" as "people groups" are there differences amongst the various people groups. Well of course there are. But are those fundamentally different on a profound level? No.Which is why its stupid that people are basing their identity around their skin color. But that doesn't mean that there is no difference between the people groups.
The census by the way allows for multiple checking of the box when it comes to Race so at the very minimum it can tell us that the number of "interracial" kids are born is increasing or decreasing. The left always keeps pegging the society as inherently racist. Having that statistic alone might justify the asking of the question about race, since it disproves the argument.
Shanna wrote:
Nobody in their right minds would base all of that on census data because it's TOO OLD. 10 years is forever as far as those things go.
How about some then? And even if the data were gathered by a yearly poll it would still be the govt collecting the data. Even if the pollsters were not the govt, the govt would be using the data to add to its census info. And if you had an objection to the sex or race question in the census why would you not object to it in a poll?
This is the same government that had no money left for white house tours.
Traditional guy wrote:
JR565...You are suddenly selling the carrot of free money allocations in response to my bringing up the well known certain results from Marxist Party rule.
Where does that money come from? The Classifiers are flat out of money.
But they can steal money from the 401K owning Kulaks whose retirement funds can be collectivized...which is Obama's current strategy, as you must know.
not at all. I agree with you in principle on how Obama is destroying the economy and how we're broke etc. just because I am for the census doesn't mean that I am for collectivization.
In fac I think its libertarians inherent hatred of govt and privacy absolutism that is undermining the idea of limiting govt.
Because demographics matter. Liberals have been painting a narrative of this country as inherently racist forever and ever. Therefore we have to keep giving the aggrieved special privileges . When you can actually track data along racial lines and see for example that the average salary of blacks say is higher than it was 30 years ago. Thus undercutting the argument. How else do you do that but use demographic information. Ad how valuable is that information if people don't fill in any of the data. Or if the data shows that blacks salaries have stagnated over thirty years while other races salaries have risen, that's an argument against democrat policies.
You can make that argument about Obama's policies NOW but only if you use data that actually takes into account race. Why are minorities hardest hit? Because the data says so. Why does the data say so, because people went out and gathered the data and people answered the question.
I can't beleive that its libertarians arguing that we should somehow not gather that data because somehow the govt can't ask about race. Its like arguing that we should be willfully ignorant.
If you want to end polices based on race, the best weapon you'll have is demographics because they will show the policies don't work or are no longer necessary. It doesn't help though if you refuse to answer the question.
As per usual, when it comes to actually addressing shrinking govt libertarians can't see the forest from the trees.
But what are you suggesting that the govt shouldn't run the economy?
Exactly!
The appropriate response would be "I won't spit, but I'll piss in it for you. Don't worry about the splash damage."
Seriously, as far as science goes, I suspect the actual question is on the lines of "how many people will cooperate with this kind of invasion, and how far will they let it go?"
Without any real way of knowing past drug/alcohol usage of the subjects, the only thing they could realistically be studying is the reaction to the test.
Meade, you provided data whether you wanted to or not.
We wrote about the Time and Travel Survey someone received. It came randomly with a $2 bill in the mail. Can you IMAGINE sending out $2 to thousands of people just to get a survey about travel? AND the government source kept sending repeat letters. Here's the article with the pictures: http://tinyurl.com/bqtgsre
Traditionally, the US Government has conducted research on its own only on classified military subjects. Everything else has been left to independent researchers who apply for grants to various funding agencies.
Read into that what you will.
The thing about the "splash damage" that would have been so sweet it the people going door to door mustn't know the real purpose of the test. Because to be effective this kind of study has to be double-blind, meaning neither the person administering the test nor the subject of the test should know the nature of the tested material.
So piss on the poor schmucks coming to your door. It may be what the feds want.
jr565,
"So your argument is the govt should not hand out money to states? "
Ding ding ding ding ding! We have a winner!!!!!
Darn right, nor should they be taxing it in the first place at the level they are.
Tell you what--let's get back to the actual constitutional order, get that firmly back in place; next see if there's remotely enough support for the amendments that would be needed to supply actual constitutional warrant for all that today's FedGov does, and then let's get back to this conversation. Let's be at least as worthy of respect as were our ancestors who realized the federal government couldn't ban consumption or intrastate sale of alcohol without an enabling amendment!
Fr. Martin,
LOL! Think, though, what a fabulous feather-in-their-cap convert you'd make if they did convince you! Is there not a single high-roller among them? :-)
jr565,
"Where in the constitution does it say what questions are supposed to be asked on the census?"
Well, have you read it? The enabling phrase itself doesn't even use the word "census", it says "actual Enumeration". So a strong case could be made that anything outside the actual counting is ultra vires.
Kirk Parker wrote:
Ding ding ding ding ding! We have a winner!!!!!
Darn right, nor should they be taxing it in the first place at the level they are.
You think that's how govt should work, but thats not the way govt works. Even if Rand Paul became president govt would work the way that it has. We will always have a federal govt that collects taxes and then doles out money. So get used to it.
It doesn't mean that it has to be as bloated as Obama's federal govt of course.
I had the aggressive invitation to participate in a federal government HHS study, but I don't think it was about drugs and alcohol, and I don't think they wanted my spit. I don't know; I didn't read that far. They were only offering $30.
I declined repeatedly.
They were coming over to my house on Sundays trying to talk me into it.
But I am a cantankerous libertarian and kept telling them firmly that I am not interested in participating.
They kept thinking $30 would entice me. I offered them $30 to go away and leave me alone.
They finally sent the big boss, the man in the suit. I saw that as particularly aggressive, like I would finally submit meekly to a man in a suit. That pissed me off and I shouted at him to leave and never come back, I am not participating in their study if they offered me three thousand dollars!
Fucking creeps.
jr565,
So if you have a "white" guy standing next to an "Asian" standing next to a "black" guy you don't actually notice any differences?
And the guy with the Thai mother and the mixed-race father? What do you call him? He famously called himself "Cablinasian," but I gather you would call him "Black." Because he's blacker than the ("legit") "Asian" guy and the "white" guy in your lineup. And, hey, one-drop rule!
I think we ought to drop "Asian" as a descriptor in any case. India and Pakistan are in Asia. Most of the former SSRs are in Asia, as well as most of Russia itself. It's kind of a big continent.
When a UK national says "Asian," s/he generally means "someone of Indian or Pakistani origin." When a US national says "Asian," s/he generally means someone Chinese or Japanese or Korean, possibly Thai or Vietnamese or Cambodian or Lao. No one would think of someone from, say, Kazakhstan. Why not?
Now this would seem tangeantly related to your post ... http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_23005906/colorado-bill-require-dna-sample-minor-offenses-draws ... at least, in dealing with the government collecting our DNA. It would seem to me that where it says: "Class 1 misdemeanors under the criminal code vary from assault to forgery and tresspassing. Moreover, it consists of misdemeanors that include unlawful recording of a live performance and inciting a riot." ... that there might be some issues with free assembly, freedom of speech, and fair usage. At any rate, it has given me the willies for a little while.
@Rose
"In a sci-fi book, years ago, the society, finding government had become too efficient, and thus detrimental, established a department of sabotage, designed to keep it from becoming too onerous."
Frank Herbert
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dosadi_Experiment
NO WAY will I do this. But they are alarmingly persistent. I have had 4 people come to my door, found a brochure when I came home one day as 'they had missed me' AND received two letters in the mail.
I so agree with the author of the article.
Now I am wondering, only half-jokingly, if they will strong-arm me into complying. Their persistence is more than a bit weird. And a little terrifying to me.
NO WAY will I do this. But they are alarmingly persistent. I have had 4 people come to my door, found a brochure when I came home one day as 'they had missed me' AND received two letters in the mail.
I so agree with the author of the article.
Now I am wondering, only half-jokingly, if they will strong-arm me into complying. Their persistence is more than a bit weird. And a little terrifying to me.
Ignorance is bliss. People are silly. I worked on this study and it will be extremely beneficial. There were over 1,000 questions on the interview and they were all questions about health. We wore badges for identification and I would even meet participants in any public place they chose. And we pay you??!! How else do you think that changes are made? How else do you the government can determine which areas need the most programs. Why don't you do something for change and be a part of something groundbreaking. It's the largest study that was ever done. A census of health. Do you want to stop people from going into places and shooting people? Maybe this would help??!! We need to know where people stand on their health to move forward. Stop being paranoid and do something for your community!! As far as the saliva sample, it's to tie in illnesses and diseases with genetics. It was completely voluntary and any question could be skipped. The address and names were wiped away once information was sent and downloaded, and no it wasn't like we were carrying around "spit" all day, we were collecting it and sending it within a day or so. Seriously people, this is not political, it's MEDICAL and necessary!
Post a Comment