TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › 2010 Census
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2010 Census

post #1 of 67
2/10/09 at 1:07pm
Thread Starter 
What is up with this?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/sle...census_fi.html


I love the comparison to PETA.
Reply
post #2 of 67
2/10/09 at 4:02pm
I think Gregg should tell them to shove it. The guy opposed legislation a long time ago on some census rules, and now people want to take a job from the SOC and give it to a NON-CABINET position?

I don't freaking think so.
Reply
post #3 of 67
2/10/09 at 6:23pm
IMO the census should only be the number of people in the household and the ages. Nothing else should be "required". I know I will NOT answer every question they have. They only need to know the # of people in the house and maybe male/female.

They don't need to know where I work, how far I drive to work, my race, and what time I eat my meals!
Reply
post #4 of 67
2/10/09 at 6:34pm
Thread Starter 
On another forum I am on, people are saying that when they receive their Census Form in the mail, they will write on it that following, "I refuse to fill out this form until the Census is given back to the Commerce Dept where it belongs"

I think that is a great idea.

I never answer all the questions either Golden.
Reply
post #5 of 67
2/10/09 at 9:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
On another forum I am on, people are saying that when they receive their Census Form in the mail, they will write on it that following, "I refuse to fill out this form until the Census is given back to the Commerce Dept where it belongs"

I think that is a great idea.

I never answer all the questions either Golden.
If it's written on, they'll just count it as "1".
Reply
post #6 of 67
2/10/09 at 11:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenKitty45 View Post
IMO the census should only be the number of people in the household and the ages. Nothing else should be "required". I know I will NOT answer every question they have. They only need to know the # of people in the house and maybe male/female.

They don't need to know where I work, how far I drive to work, my race, and what time I eat my meals!
I won't answer most those questions either. It's the same when I file my taxes. On the bottum of the Fed tax form, it asks what is your employer or something like that. My answer is always the same, tax payer I may answer the questions, but it will not be the answers they want It's none of their business.
Reply
post #7 of 67
2/11/09 at 6:37am
All I can say is that as a former genealogist I would have given anything to have those things listed on former census records
Reply
post #8 of 67
2/11/09 at 2:31pm
Is it really that time already? Holy cow.

Anyway, it sounds like gerrymandering will be back in full force. It's a great American tradition that whoever is in control of the government gets to manipulate the census to solidify their control. But keep this in mind: the census is in 2010. Elections are in 2010. The results of the census are out in 2011. It's not a lock that the Democrats will control the government in 2011.

I agree with this post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenKitty45 View Post
IMO the census should only be the number of people in the household and the ages. Nothing else should be "required". I know I will NOT answer every question they have. They only need to know the # of people in the house and maybe male/female.

They don't need to know where I work, how far I drive to work, my race, and what time I eat my meals!
And that's how I've handled it every census. I've answered only the questions that give the above information. Technically it's illegal to not answer the questions, but I've never gotten in trouble for it and if they want to arrest me, they can take it up with the Supreme Court, because I don't think the census's intrusion into my private life is constitutional.
Reply
post #9 of 67
2/11/09 at 6:52pm
Thread Starter 
Personally I would love to know what time Golden eats dinner, wouldn't you Coaster?
Reply
post #10 of 67
2/11/09 at 7:53pm
Well, I'm sure some bureaucrat in Washington thinks it's a need-to-know item anyway.
Reply
post #11 of 67
2/11/09 at 9:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlleyGirl View Post
All I can say is that as a former genealogist I would have given anything to have those things listed on former census records
I did address listings in 1999 for the 2000 census. The information gathered is very valuable. It is used to help determine transportation funding, school funding, etc. http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/dropin7.htm
What I found ironic was that the Mexicans, when they realized that their answers weren't going to be given to the INS, were some of the most cooperative. The most difficult listings were those who had mean dogs The ranching families were also very cooperative, as were the people who were well-off & retired with advanced education.
It was interesting to see who was fearful & suspicious and who was confident & cooperative.
Reply
post #12 of 67
2/12/09 at 1:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlleyGirl View Post
All I can say is that as a former genealogist I would have given anything to have those things listed on former census records
Same here. I love the census for all the details it gives. Then again, I already know "Big Brother" can find me whenever he wants to so not worried about it
Reply
post #13 of 67
2/12/09 at 2:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
On another forum I am on, people are saying that when they receive their Census Form in the mail, they will write on it that following, "I refuse to fill out this form until the Census is given back to the Commerce Dept where it belongs"

I think that is a great idea.

I never answer all the questions either Golden.
Maybe that's why Joseph, Mary and Jesus never showed up on a census anywhere...they were all wannabe political activists
Reply
post #14 of 67
2/12/09 at 3:42pm
Well, actually they were on a census. That's why they were in Bethlehem. Caesar Augustus required everyone in the Roman Empire to travel to their home towns to be counted in the Roman census. Those who argue there wasn't a Roman census on record for Judea in the year Jesus was believed to have been born are off target. The Roman census was a "rolling" census, each province once every 14 years for some, every seven years for others. At the time Judea wasn't a Roman province yet, it was a semi-independent kingdom. It's thought that Judea was included in an Egyptian census to demonstrate Roman control, and there are records of Egyptian censii (?) being taken several years before and again several years after the zero AD year.

As far as showing up today, can you imaging how many Josephs there must have been in Judea? It's like looking today for a certain individual named Tom, knowing only his first name.
Reply
post #15 of 67
2/12/09 at 3:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster View Post
in the year Jesus was believed to have been born
Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster View Post
It's thought that Judea was included in an Egyptian census
Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster View Post
As far as showing up today, can you imaging how many Josephs there must have been in Judea? It's like looking today for a certain individual named Tom, knowing only his first name.
Then, in light of all this believing and thinking and no last names...how do we know they were included in a census?

There seems to have been a very, very convenient, perhaps even purposeful, omission of last names for a lot of characters in this story. Perhaps because they wouldn't have been found on a census if someone actually knew who to look for?
Reply
post #16 of 67
2/12/09 at 5:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caleeko View Post
Maybe that's why Joseph, Mary and Jesus never showed up on a census anywhere...they were all wannabe political activists
And I bet they didn't use their club card to purchase groceries either!!!
Hmmm, wonder if those who are so reluctant to answer census questionnaires DARE to use club cards/ discount cards.....
Reply
post #17 of 67
2/12/09 at 9:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Then, in light of all this believing and thinking and no last names...how do we know they were included in a census?
The archeological evidence you profess to believe says there was a census. If there was a census, I don't doubt Joseph and Mary obeyed and got counted. Romans tended to kill non-Romans who didn't obey their laws. They had no recourse to Roman law and courts.

"Hey you, Jew boy, I don't see your name here on the census scroll for residents of Bethlehem!!"

"Well, sir, I'm so sorry, sir, but my fiance was pregnant, you see -- and I didn't do it, either, so it's not my fault -- we really couldn't travel all the way down to Bethlehem. Sir, couldn't you just edit us in to your census parchment? I'm sure my parents could find a gold drachma or two to make it worth your while."

"You stupid Hebe, don't you know the first count is the last count? No edits allowed!! Here, see how sharp my sword is?"

<WACK!!>

<Sounds of wheezing, gurgling, gargling, groaning, and general thrashing about, which rapidly subside>

"Oh, for Caesar's sake, what a mess. These confounded smelly Israelites sure do bleed all over the place when you poke them. Hey!! You Samaritans over there, come clean up this mess!! "

"And thanks for the tip about the gold .... where does this boy's mater et pater live, anyhow?"

--------------

note on Hebrew last names : I don't believe they had last names; as far as I can remember without actually doing the research to confirm, they were known as the son or daughter of so-and-so from the town of so-and-so.
Reply
post #18 of 67
2/12/09 at 10:13pm
I thought I might of had something to add to the discussion but I don't. We covered this briefly (very briefly, it's not a religion class) a couple of terms ago during World History 1 when we were on the subject of the Hebrews. My prof gave us some evidence that supports the idea Jesus had lived but he also gave us information in regards to NOT having authentic information about his childhood but that it should have been the same as other Jewish boys based on their culture.
Reply
post #19 of 67
2/13/09 at 12:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster View Post
The archeological evidence you profess to believe says there was a census. If there was a census, I don't doubt Joseph and Mary obeyed and got counted. Romans tended to kill non-Romans who didn't obey their laws. They had no recourse to Roman law and courts.
The existence of a census was never the question. The question was, how did you know they were counted on one? But, as we have now gone from "they were" to "no doubt", that answers my question, id est, we don't know that they were ever counted in a census.

There were indeed surnames, though not often family names as we know them now, but still ways to identify one from the other, such as the brothers Maccabee. But in certain literature there appears to be an purpose driven effort to exclude "too much" information.
Reply
post #20 of 67
2/13/09 at 7:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by catsknowme View Post
I did address listings in 1999 for the 2000 census. The information gathered is very valuable. It is used to help determine transportation funding, school funding, etc. http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/dropin7.htm
What I found ironic was that the Mexicans, when they realized that their answers weren't going to be given to the INS, were some of the most cooperative. The most difficult listings were those who had mean dogs The ranching families were also very cooperative, as were the people who were well-off & retired with advanced education.
It was interesting to see who was fearful & suspicious and who was confident & cooperative.
Now this is an interesting post and I tend to think much the same. If anyone out there doesn't believe that the governments already don't know pretty much anything they need/want to know about each of us or that they can't get that information by means other than a census, then you are fooling yourselves. They may not know where you physically are at any particular time but you better believe they know all about you and would be able to find you should they need to. People who have nothing to fear usually aren't fearful.
Reply
post #21 of 67
2/13/09 at 7:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
People who have nothing to fear usually aren't fearful.
Can you explain that to people who are also upset by the Patriot Act?
Reply
post #22 of 67
2/13/09 at 7:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
Can you explain that to people who are also upset by the Patriot Act?
The teeny, tiny difference between the two is, the Census Beauru don't have the authority to show up at your house in the dead of night with a clandestine assault force to ask you your annual income.
Reply
post #23 of 67
2/13/09 at 7:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
The teeny, tiny difference between the two is, the Census Beauru don't have the authority to show up at your house in the dead of night with a clandestine assault force to ask you your annual income.
If you've done nothing wrong no one shows up anyway.
Reply
post #24 of 67
2/13/09 at 7:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
Can you explain that to people who are also upset by the Patriot Act?
Hysteria or paranoia perhaps?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
The teeny, tiny difference between the two is, the Census Beauru don't have the authority to show up at your house in the dead of night with a clandestine assault force to ask you your annual income.
I would be too embarrassed to tell them my annual income.
Reply
post #25 of 67
2/13/09 at 7:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
If you've done nothing wrong no one shows up anyway.
That we know of. Rendition would do an excellent job of ensuring things like that are never known about.
Reply
post #26 of 67
2/13/09 at 8:38am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
That we know of. Rendition would do an excellent job of ensuring things like that are never known about.
Now who is fear mongering?
Reply
post #27 of 67
2/13/09 at 9:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Now who is fear mongering?
Exactly! You caught on

What I was saying is every bit as "real" as the "dangers" of completely filling out a census questionairre, which is, nada; paranoia at it's best.
Reply
post #28 of 67
2/13/09 at 10:11am
Thread Starter 
I'm not afraid to fill out the Census questions, I just don't want to do it and I won't be forced to do it. They may be able to get the info somewhere else, I'm sure they can, then let them. My private life is mine and I won't help them get the info by giving it to them. In 2000 I didn't fill out all the answers and I don't intend to next year either.

And I'm sorry, if this country really wants to get beyond "race" than they have no business even asking what race a person is. None at all.
Reply
post #29 of 67
2/13/09 at 4:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
The existence of a census was never the question. The question was, how did you know they were counted on one? .
I used "know" in the same sense as you would say "I know the moon rises in the east over Japan." You weren't there to observe it, it probably was too insignificant to be noticed and reported, somewhere it may have been recorded, but you've never seen the record. Yet, you can say you know it happened, and I'll believe you. From everything else we know about the orbit of the moon around the Earth, the location of Japan, and other things we know to be true, we can say with assurance that we know the moon rises in the east over Japan. Likewise we can say with assurance that if we know there was a census and we know how the Romans operated in the areas they controlled, we can say that we know someone in Judea at that time would have been caught up in that census. It's a logical progression.
Reply
post #30 of 67
2/13/09 at 4:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
And I'm sorry, if this country really wants to get beyond "race" than they have no business even asking what race a person is. None at all.
Right on target.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › 2010 Census