I’m In Bed With The Right Wing Wackos!

Although I do not in any way consider myself a “conservative” and would consider it an insult if anyone said I was one, I find that many conservatives are in bed with anarchist-libertarian thinking on the issue of the upcoming census.  (You should be receiving your census form any day now.)

Bottom line: over time, the census questions have gone way beyond the original purpose of the Constitution’s framers when they mandated a decennial census.  The government’s interest in all sorts of personal information is not just annoyingly voyeuristic but a threat to freedom, because privacy is essential to freedom.

I’m pleased that this time around, there seems to be much more vocal opposition to the census than in 2000.  A Minnesota Republican Congresswoman has stated she will only answer the question about the number of people living in the home. Glenn Beck has made the same statement.  Read about that here.

This year, there are only 10 questions on what has been called the “short” form.  Here are the questions.  Pay close attention to question 9: it asks if you are “Black, African American, or Negro.”  How 17th century is that?! (OK Nick, there’s your cue…. 😉  )

Also, notice the statement asserting that the “race” question has been asked since 1790?  Typical government deceit!  Does anyone really believe that in 1790 the census asked about Filipinos, Vietnamese, etc?  The only “race” question was about “negro” because they counted as 3/5 of a person for deternining a state’s electoral votes.  If you were not a “negro”, they didn’t care what you were.

Most of the census questions not about the number of persons in the home are asked for one reason: to further the social engineering that gooberment has embarked on.  Yes, we must assist in bringing about the perfect society, and with it, the perfect Socialist Comrade! (Please sing Kumbaya now….)

Also, notice that if there is more than one person in the home, it asks certain information only about “Person 1.”  And who would that be?  Sounds very sexist to me because I suspect in most married homes “Person 1” will be the husband.

Like many of those opposed to any census question other then the number of folks in the home, I object to the invasion of privacy.  Now, our Big Brother gooberment will, with its best straight face, tell you that all information you provide will be kept confidential because that is the law. Riiiight!

Remind these lap dogs that IRS information is also confidential by law.  But that didn’t stop “Tricky Dick” Nixon from pulling the IRS files on any and all “enemies” he wanted to snoop on, did it?  So why should anyone believe census information can be kept confidential?

It has not been kept confidential in the past.  Census information was used to identify Japanese-Americans for internment during World War II and to identify Arabic people after September 11.  Check this out.

What’s really insane is that the census doesn’t care whether you’re a legal resident or not.  Which means if a lot of illegal residents complete the census then states with a lot of those folks, such as California, Texas and yes, Florida, may be “rewarded” with additional seats in Congress since the census count is used for reapportioning Congressional seats by state.

Besides the “short” form, there is a 100+ questionnaire that some folks be asked to complete about all sorts of information. That’s “you” and not me, because if I receive it, I will not complete it.

Last year, the Census conducted a survey on spending habits.  Fortunately for them, I was not selected to participate.  It is none of the government’s frigging business how I spend my money.

Technically, there’s a $100 fine for refusing to complete the census form.  I doubt they’ll levy the fine but I sure hope they do with me.  Because that’ll be my 15 minutes of fame.  Maybe it’ll get me an interview with Glenn Beck. Which could launch my political career since I’ll soon be looking for something to do in my retirement.

I value my freedom and privacy…$100 is a bargain basement price to pay for them.

If the Census folks come knocking on my door, I’ll give them the middle finger salute.  It’s constitutionally protected free speech!

Advertisements

14 responses to “I’m In Bed With The Right Wing Wackos!

  1. This is sooo funny. What’s also funny is that this was the subject of Andy Rooney’s commentary on 60 Minutes last week. He also commented about the “Person 1” issue, saying that if he called himself Person 1 his wife might object to that! His other issue is that one of the questions on the 10-question short form is “What is your phone number?” Why, he asked, does the government need to know my phone number? (I thought, maybe they want to call you up and offer you a good deal on a bank lol.) Certain questions are mandated but in 1790, your phone number was not one of them. I’ve got them foiled already on that one–I don’t have a phone 🙂
    Now then, you must read this editorial, it so made me think of you!
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/opinion/05brooks.html

    • The Tea Party is using proven methods of success! The radical left and radical right are separated by a very small perspective and have very much in common. As this post makes clear….

      As for that bit about not having anything to replace the existing structure, that is completely irrelevant and ignores American history.

      The Declaration of Independence was in 1776. At that time there was absolutely NO replacement form of government. Nada. Zilch.

      The replacement did not happen until over a decade later at the 1787 Constitutional Convention.

      So to those who say there must be a replacement developed first, I say: then you would have supported the King and not the Revolution.

      Off with their traitorous heads! Which of course, depended entirely on the outcome.

      Washington, Jefferson, et. al. are heroes only because the Revolution succeeded. Otherwise, they’d have hanged and history would have labeled them traitors.

      P.S. I thought Andy Rooney was dead! Or at least long gone from TV.

  2. I have no idea…it let me comment as long as I didn’t add the link to the NYT editorial. Which is very, very funny, in a scary way 🙂

  3. The Tea Party is a true test of intellectual consistency for me 🙂 I hate them and wish they would shut up and go away. However, you can hardly pick and choose when it comes to freedom of speech. Which is too bad, since I’d like bold rhetoric to be confined to people who agree with me 🙂

    • To be honest, and I have no compunctions about that, I have little idea about what the Tea Party is about, other than they do not seem to like taxes or Obama. I do not follow the news on the Tea Party.

      And I am not at all curious about what they are about. Freedom includes my freedom not to listen to anyone I’m not interested in and to be very close-minded. Most folks are closed-minded but won’t admit it because close-minded is not PC.

      PT completes misreads the reality of modern day (and, I would argue, the entire history of) politics. Or perhaps he recognizes it but chafes at, rather than accept, a reality that cannot be changed.

      Which is: politics is not about objective, factually-informed discussion. That is nonsensical theory. There are few historical instances of that.

      Politics is about emotional and subjective views struggling for dominance. Might makes right. Mao enunciated no new truth when he said: Power grows form the barrel of a gun.

      “Truth”, whatever that is, will never prevail except through a fortuitous pairing with the power necessary to dominate and destroy the opposition. That is American history’s own truth,as it has been for world history.

  4. I plan on checking the “other” box and writing in Kingon!

  5. Nick…you cannot be a Klingon, you are far too handsome for it 🙂
    As for open-mindedness. That’s a tricky subject. I consider myself to be relatively open-minded, emphasis on “relatively”. I do listen to people who don’t agree with me (as long as they aren’t screaming and calling me names) and I try to grasp what they are saying. But I find that it’s rare that I’m convinced enough to change my opinion. My mind resists it. So does that make me “close-minded”? I tend to think that at least I’m giving it a shot.
    As for pt, I think his opinions are less about trying to understand the world and more about proving he’s smarter and more worldly than you are. It’s a personality issue, not a political one.

  6. > But I find that it’s rare that I’m convinced enough > to change my opinion.

    I wonder of you can recall *ever* changing you mind solely because of a “discussion.” Without an intervening “incident” that caused you to re-valuate your beliefs, in light of a previous discussion.

    I cannot recall that ever happening with me. When my opinion has changed, it has been solely because of *experience*, because of existentialist reality exploding theory.

    The mind is the greatest deceiver. That’s why it’s called “rationalizing” despicable beliefs and actions.

    > pt, I think his opinions are…more about proving
    > he’s smarter and more worldly than you are.

    I think PT is at an age where that posturing is unimportant. I think he truly believes in what he says and thinks it can be “proved.” But in every revolution, including revolution of theory, there are those who will not accept that the paradigm is unsustainable. They will go to their graves believing the world is flat.

  7. Your question is quite legitimate (not that you would care lol). But it made me think. I think that I’ve never “changed my mind” based on another person’s opinion. But other people’s opinions have caused me to question my own; and to do research into whatever the issue is. Sometimes my belief is confirmed, and sometimes not. Then I have to change. Which can be very uncomfortable lol.
    Adaptability is the key to survival (you can tell I’m reading a book about polar bears). If you become entrenched in anything..any lifestyle, any idea…you are doomed, in my opinion.
    As for pt, age is no excuse. He is our age. It’s just that his world is flat.

  8. > Adaptability is the key to survival

    A very existentialist pronouncement with which agree 1000%!
    Forget theory…respond to reality.

  9. Thanks for the eye opener! I’m sure, had I not read this, I’d be irritated by the questions on the census but would never think to only answer the question about the number of people living in the home.

    Not sure whether or not I’ll do it, but knowing the fine is about $100 and not likely to be enforced, it’s worth considering.

  10. Get this…I got a letter in the mail from them today, alerting me to the fact that I would get the form in about a week. Talk about a waste of taxpayer money!

What say you?

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s