The American Community Survey
4
I have mentioned getting this thing from the Census Bureau a couple of times but am just realizing how truly creeped out I am by it. It's apparently an ongoing survey they do to about 3.5 million people a year that is supposed to help allocate funds and community resources.
But seriously, I've had physicals that felt less invasive.
I'm not a big conspiracy nut or anything and I can kinda see that asking how I fuel my heater and how much my utility bills are could be relevant, but what time I leave for work? or how much work I missed last week?
I dunno, I've managed to miss out on all the decennial surveys so far so maybe I'm just not used to the governmental probing. Have any of you guys done this one before? Or skipped it?
- 20 comments, 115 replies
- Comment
They said they were from the Census Bureau?
@RedOak yep
@Kleineleh I was sort of kidding.
I'd blow it off until they offer to pay you for your time. (Won't happen.)
The govt already has too much personal info. No legit justification to ask you to voluntarily offer up more.
@RedOak I agree, and right now that's pretty much my plan. I'm also kinda starting to wish I'd bought some of the security cameras Meh keeps selling. Just the fact that they even ask some of this stuff makes me feel exposed
@RedOak my father got one. And it told him he had to go online to fill it out. He threw it away. He doesn’t have a computer.
That sounds like... bullshit?
When they do the big census, they send people out, door to door... you sure this is legit?
@Thumperchick Unfortunately, I am. And they've now sent it to me twice, along with a nice little postcard advising me to send in the survey or they'll send people to ask me awkward questions in person. On the plus side, I've never gotten to duck a subpoena, maybe this will come close to that experience
@Thumperchick No they don't. At least not until you fail to respond to the mail requests at least twice, I think. Think about how expensive door to door is. I worked for them scads of years ago one summer when I was in college.
@Cerridwyn I signed up to do it once, but they insisted on assigning me to my own predominantly Spanish speaking neighborhood, where I can’t communicate with most people past Tarzan-speak.
@Thumperchick It’s quite legit.
Never gotten one, but if the addresses match it is most likely legit.
https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/
It sort of comforts me that they do still have to ask, I mean if the system had totally gone to hell they could just access the
REDACTEDdata and see all the answers pretty quickly. :)https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/about/how-the-acs-works.html
@thismyusername I did think of that, and I am a bit comforted by it as well. Of course some of it is public information and I wish they would just go look it up themselves. I think if my name weren't attached, it wouldn't bother me so much. Enough agencies already have my name because of my background checks for work that I should be used to it, but none of them ever asked if I have difficulty bathing
@Kleineleh Can you add to that and inform them that you only have difficulty bathing the opossum you found in your backyard, but that he smells much better now and is quite comfortable in his new home?
I'd be tempted to have a bit of fun.
@jaremelz I like it! Maybe if I write really small- that one is a yes/no checkbox
@Kleineleh I think the issue here is similar to many govt issues... the census was setup in 1790 and follows some pretty old school practices. This survey was added in 1995 to replace the long form, because people didn't like the long form.
Remember 1995? The internet was still pretty sketchy... data was pretty sparse, the departments were all separated from one another... not to mention they probably started working on this update years before 1995.
If enough people moan about it, I suspect it will get an update again. :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Community_Survey
Just wait for phase 2: the face-to-"face" portion. You'll know what's coming when they pull out the gloves.
@christinewas Brace yourself....
@jaremelz Are those boxing gloves? I don't think that's what she meant.
@jqubed I figure we've no idea how gently they plan on going at this.
@jaremelz I think I just snorted.
@jaremelz They really ought to at least buy a nice dinner first?
@jqubed They really otter at least do that.
@jqubed They'd probably just dip into someone else's -
'
When I receive the American Community Survey form, I return it with a cover letter. The letter simply states that since the Constitution established a federal government of limited enumerated powers and that document does not grant them the general power to request the information they are seeking, I am under no constitutional obligation to provide it.
If they attempt to distort case law and threaten me with the $5,000 fine, I simply send a letter to the Justice Department and request the immediate prosecution of the individuals making the threat.
Even though I do not like to cite precedent in my letters, I usually DO attach this one citation to my letter (or occasionally I'll hold it in reserve to support my refusal to comply with the request) because it usually ALWAYS ends the interaction immediately (and any threat of a fine).
In Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447, 479 (May 26, 1894), the Supreme Court stated as follows:
“Neither branch of the legislative department, still less any merely administrative body, established by congress, possesses, or can be invested with, a general power of making inquiry into the private affairs of the citizen. Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 190.
(Note: Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168 (1880) was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the question whether or not the United States House of Representatives may compel testimony).
"We [the Court] said in Boyd v. U.S., 116 U. S. 616, 630, 6 Sup. Ct. 524,―and it cannot be too often repeated,―that the principles that embody the essence of constitutional liberty and security forbid all invasions on the part of government and it’s employees of the sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of his life.
(Note: Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, in which the Court held that “a search and seizure [was] equivalent [to] a compulsory production of a man's private papers” and that the search was “an 'unreasonable search and seizure' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.)
"As said by Mr. Justice Field in Re Pacific Ry. Commission, 32 Fed. 241, 250, ‘of all the rights of the citizen, few are of greater importance or more essential to his peace and happiness than the right of personal security, and that involves, not merely protection of his person from assault, but exemption of his private affairs, books, and papers from inspection and scrutiny of others. Without the enjoyment of this right, all others would lose half their value.’”
AGAIN, All of this is directly from: Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447, 479 (May 26, 1894)
Note: This United States Supreme Court case has NEVER been overturned.
If the federal government had been granted the general power to make inquires into the private affairs of the American people through the Census or a congressional mandated survey, then the Supreme Court could not have made this statement, AND THEY HAVE NEVER MADE ANY STATEMENT CONTRARY (regardless of when it was initially made).
Now that you know the federal government was not granted the constitutional authority to make general inquires into our private affairs under the umbrella of the Census or a survey, I hope you and others will consider engaging in polite civil disobedience and refuse to comply with such unconstitutional requests.
Short TL;DR version: cite this case - Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447, 479 (May 26, 1894) - AND TELL THEM TO GO FUCK THEMSELVES IN THE ASS WITHOUT LUBRICATION WITH AN AMERICAN BUFFALO DICK.
As always, please seek competent counsel, the above is not intended to offer legal advice. (Although I know this one cold and have prevailed EVERY SINGLE TIME - generally, I wait for them to show up at my door, meet them with a shotgun and ask their names, that way I can detail their identities in my letter to the Justice Department while also filing a trespassing complaint).
This shit chaps my hide. As if you couldn't tell.
@Pavlov Yea! I get to go buy a shotgun! Seriously, though, I love this, you are awesome.
@Pavlov any advice on a reasonably priced, basic, home-defense shotgun? I am sitting on student debt so frugal is key.
@connorbush Find a Wal-Mart that still sells shotguns - best price by far.
@connorbush I prefer the Remington 870 over the Mossberg 500, but either one is what you want. Look for sales (now).
@connorbush The Savage Stevens 320 definitely has one of the best bang:buck ratio around for a HD 12ga. There are a bunch of variations on it too for a little more/less (ghost ring sights, etc).. prices vary from $150-250 depending on which model/where you get it. http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/advanced_search_result.php?keywords=stevens+320&x=0&y=0
@Chops sounds more in my range of pricing! Thanks
@connorbush If you're in the midwest or have a friend or family member in the area, check out Midwest Gun Trader online. Great bargains - never had a bad experience - @MrsPavlov uses the site to buy and trade all the time.
@Pavlov unfortunately I'm in California. Not a gun friendly place to be.
@Pavlov
Do you know if texasguntrader is a relative of midwestguntrader?
Getting into firearms and starting to own one or several is one of my personal projects for the next few years, along w concealed carry. Sort of a housewarming present to self.
@f00l No idea. From the domain registration info and the differences in the Websites, I'd say they're most likely unrelated other than being similarly named.
We have “constitutional carry” here - allowing anyone twenty one years of age and older who is legally permitted to possess a firearm to carry it concealed regardless of whether they have obtained a permit (and no proof of any classroom instruction is necessary). Prior to the carry law changing, we had approx. 87,000 permitted carriers. Now, after the change, law enforcement conservatively estimates the number of people carrying a concealed handgun in my state is closer to 300,000 to as many as half a million daily carriers (based on Terry stop sampling data). Once the mandatory "permit" (tracking) was removed, we're all carrying.
Our state's public universities currently have authority to ban guns on campus. That will change on July 1, 2017, when they’ll be required to open their institutions to concealed weapons. Soon, I have a feeling we'll be telling the federal government to fuck off their "gun free zone" in the courts (The Gun-Free School Zones Act [GFSZA] is a federal United States law that prohibits any unauthorized individual from knowingly possessing a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone).
If my son's school administrator, front office staff or or any teacher is currently caught with a gun, they'll be terminated, arrested and prosecuted. Our district's school resource officers frankly don't make it a point to ever go looking . . . In fact, in the off chance of an active shooter incident occurring and a resulting revelation that a school employee had in fact harbored such a weapon in violation of the GFSZA and it was used to prevent or limit loss of life by eliminating (with extreme motherfucking prejudice) the active shooter, every school's PTA in our district has made it a point to promise to not only crowdfund the legal defense of the school employee that shoots the fucker dead - but also set them and their family up for life. They'll want for nothing.
Personally, I don't know that the feds would even attempt to prosecute in such a circumstance, and if they did, I'd bet good money for jury nullification in my federal district.
When I was in elementary school (a long, long time ago) the principal had, in his office, a large wooden paddle on one hook and a shotgun resting on two others. Damn if he didn't use that paddle, and frankly my generation is better off for it. And damn if he wouldn't have used that shotgun if it was needed - and for that we'd have all been better off too.
@Pavlov what state is that? I know here in Vermont we don’t have concealed permits or open carry permits. We can’t take guns into federal buildings, courthouses, schools, and private residences/businesses can not allow then but for the most part we’re pretty liberal with our gun rights. One of the papers even showed how easy it is to buy an AR-15 in a 5 guys parking lot from Craigslist.
@sohmageek Kansas
@Pavlov
Does Kansas allow open carry now?
@f00l Open, concealed – ♪ Anywhere you want it. (Almost) We got it. ♪ It’s deja vu all over again. Wild, wild west at its finest. Yeah, right.
@Barney
Yeah here too. I think concealed still required a permit? Not sure.
Not that anyone cares. There are astonishing # of armories just among my acquaintances.
I see the open carry activists around once in a while. Most public businesses won’t allow it because you lose all the moms with their children. And almost all workplaces prohibit. Most campuses are forced to allow it, including the 40+ state universities and I think all the locallly funded jr colleges, colleges, and universities as well.
@f00l Permit? Ha! What is that? Yeah, who can keep up with who does what, where anymore.
@f00l We don’t need no stinking permits. We have constitutional carry. If you can legally own it, you can carry it however you want.
@Pavlov what about fresh smelling permits?
@Thumperchick They smell fresh.
@Pavlov but do we need them?
@Pavlov I can’t find the image now. But (I think) in the late 90’s I think it was, some of the highschools had to pull the gun racks out. The kids used to bring their hunting rifles and lock them up next to their books and everything at hunting time.
I remember I was in rotc and we had m1’s that didn’t have firing pins. However one of the other high schools still had working m1’s for competition.
@Pavlov Glad to see you engaged on this topic. I’m generally supportive of pro-gun initiatives tho I’m uncomfortable with some ‘intimidation’ scenarios I’ve seen played out in public by open-carry activists.
The concern I have is relative to allowing weapons at school/campus. I have 2 questions to which I think you might provide well-considered answers:
Seriously: Not trying to trigger. Just haven’t seen any calm discussions, at least not round these (TX) parts.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@compunaut I’ll consider a reply and post later this evening - have a dinner and errands.
@Pavlov
@compunaut
Check out the history of the University of Texas Tower massacre in 1966.
Charles Whitman, a very disturbed ex-Marine with a brain tumor, went up the library tower elevator with quite an arsenal, intending to kill as many as possible. If you have seen the UT campus, you know what a perfect layout it would be for a sniper.
He killed - what - 16-17 I think, including some inside the tower and relatives at home before he took position on the tower.
At first he had a very easy time - classes got out, no one understood what was going on at first. All those broad grassy stretches. His weaponry and expertise gave him enormous range.
But this is Texas in 1966 and a lot of people had hunting rifles in the cars. Once word got out, people went home to get rifles.
I’ve seen numerous photos of people firing back at him, using cars and buildings as cover.
At first he had clear range in every direction. The return fire from the citizens forced him down and he could only fire thru rainspouts if he wanted not to be hit. But by this time the open streets were already clear of people. The return fire may have allowed some rescues of the downed to take place - it’s not clear.
However, when cops ran cross the lawns to get to the tower, and then when they were on the tower balcony, the citizens were still firing - at the cops. The people with rifles prob weren’t quite sure what they were seeing. Even after Whitman was confirmed dead - the Austin police had no way of letting everyone know “all safe”, tho they tried using while flags from the tower balcony.
The day was poorly documented compared to how something similar would be handled now. I don’t know whether anyone will ever be able to prove whether the armed citizens helped or not. Certainly the cops and public were grateful at the time.
Currently Austin police is far better prepared now than then, both with tactical and communications. If something like this ever happens again, they’ve made it clear that they don’t want citizens shooting once cops are notified and on the scene.
So - it’s complicated. If you want to count “only best possible scenarios” - a trained and cool-headed armed citizenry always wins in theory. In real life these incidents are always complex. Overall, in emergencies, least in Texas, an armed citizenry is better, to me, with some degree of personal and private reservations that do not matter to the law - and I don’t want them to. (limiting my personal judgement to the emergency in this case.)
In law, of course, we recognize certain rights, those rights will prob expand. I’m good with that. And most people I know who own firearms are very careful with them. There’s a bit of a cultural tradition and pride in what’s left of frontiermanship and rural traditions and responsibility.
If I lived in a gang war-zone or mafia zone or a place without traditions of public civility, I’m not sure what my private opinion would be, but my opinion wouldn’t matter anyway. It just wouldn’t be very safe - unless the gangs and magic should enormous deference toward “civilians”, And I’d want my own firearm in that case.
In a dangerous world there’s no simple way to be safe in every circumstance. However, I’d trust most of the Americans I’ve met with a firearm in a crisis. Better armed than not.
@compunaut
You raise two very interesting questions. I’m not sure I have an answer to number one. All I know for certain is that in all of the incidents that have occurred at a school, once the shooter(s) was confronted by an armed response (police or private citizen), no other innocents were killed.
As for question two - the police are trained to enter an active shooter situation loudly, with great intention. Purposefully. The police know that when the shooter is confronted by an armed response, the shooter stops taking innocent lives. When the police enter, they want the shooter (and everyone else) to immediately know they are there. Relatively often, just the act of the police breaching the building and announcing will prompt the shooter to run through the suicide scenario he has premeditated and he’ll stop shooting to complete the suicidal act himself or he will intentionally go towards the police to commit suicide by cop. In fact, in one incident, the shooter was prompted to take his own life with the final act he had scripted in his head simply by a private citizen yelling that he (the private citizen) was the police.
If you are a private citizen and you’re carrying in an active shooter situation and you don’t drop the gun and put your hands up when the police are present or have announced, well, the Darwin wins. (And he should have won long prior.) If you are a private citizen and you continue to shoot after the police announce and enter and you shoot a cop, Darwin is going to win again, but yes, it is possible that a private citizen might shoot an officer in such an intense environment. But the police do not enter with stealth - they have a purposeful reason for them to want the shooter to know they are there. It isn’t like in the movies.
All I know for certain, is that when confronted by an armed response (police or private citizen), the school shooter stops taking innocent lives. Every time.
To me personally, that is of the greatest import.
@compunaut
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman
Love the thoughtful discussion
@f00l I’ve lived here almost 25yr; I know who Charles Whitman was. In fact, I worked with some guys (think all retired now) who were on campus the day the massacre happened. Got some personal stories from a ‘scared student’ perspective; read up a little bit when I visited UT campus the first time.
@Pavlov @f00l Even in the best of circumstances, when high percentages of the public have weapons it seems inevitable that an innocent bystander will get shot/killed by ‘friendly fire’, even a responsible gun owner ‘just trying to help’ (especially in crowded/high-density situations such as the Pulse/Orlando massacre, the ambush of Dallas police, and many school shooting incidents). Forensics should sort everything out (eventually, hopefully), but how will folks be held accountable if they shoot a non-criminal? If we allow self-deputization how will we separate a sociopath vigilante from the upstanding armed citizen? We’ve already got crazies threatening folks who they said were acting ‘suspiciously’. I know personally of an instance where a minority man had a gun pulled on him by a ‘neighbor’ as he walked his dog at twilight (fairly late in TX summer) returning to HIS OWN HOUSE.
The police are highly trained (
) for intense confrontation; most lay people are not. The police are accountable to ALL citizens & the local elected officials; average joes are not. We can’t have amateur policing. We may need to get SERIOUS about mandatory martial training if ‘armed citizenry’ (meaning gun owners who are routinely carrying - concealed or otherwise) continues to rise substantially.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
From the Interwebs: Here's a pre-written cover letter:
To Whom it May Concern,
Pursuant to Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution, the only information you are empowered to request is the total number of occupants at this address.
My “name, sex, age, date of birth, race, ethnicity, telephone number, relationship and housing tenure, etc.” have absolutely nothing to do with apportioning direct taxes or determining the number of representatives in the House of Representatives. Therefore, neither Congress nor the Census Bureau have the constitutional authority to make that information request a component of the enumeration outlined in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3.
In addition, I cannot be subject to a fine for basing my conduct on the Constitution because that document does not supplant prior statute(s) passed by Congress.
As stated in: Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447, 479 (May 26, 1894) -
“Neither branch of the legislative department, still less any merely administrative body, established by congress, possesses, or can be invested with, a general power of making inquiry into the private affairs of the citizen. Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 190.
"We said in Boyd v. U.S., 116 U. S. 616, 630, 6 Sup. Ct. 524,―and it cannot be too often repeated,―that the principles that embody the essence of constitutional liberty and security forbid all invasions on the part of government and it’s employees of the sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of his life.
"As said by Mr. Justice Field in Re Pacific Ry. Commission, 32 Fed. 241, 250, ‘of all the rights of the citizen, few are of greater importance or more essential to his peace and happiness than the right of personal security, and that involves, not merely protection of his person from assault, but exemption of his private affairs, books, and papers from inspection and scrutiny of others. Without the enjoyment of this right, all others would lose half their value.’”
Please note (as I am certain you are aware): This United States Supreme Court case has never been overturned.
Respectfully,
A Citizen of the United States of America
Send that in along with the total number of occupants at the address.
Fuck 'em.
Edit: Should read: " . . . is not supplanted by subsequent . . . " (paragraph three) - My bad, sorry.
@Pavlov You are SO my hero today!
@Pavlov wanna be my spiritual and life mentor?
@Pavlov I wonder how soon this gets one placed on 'the list'?
BTW - NO ONE HAS EVER BEEN FINED FOR NON-COMPLIANCE AND UP TO 5% OF THESE SURVEYS ARE NEVER RETURNED.
@Pavlov Never returned ours. Never got a follow up. Just lucky, I guess.
One wonders whether anybody has attempted to invert the Freedom of Information Act? To advise the govt representative that, as with their request for payment when we ask for information, we are requesting payment for their request for our information.
After all, they do work for us, right? Right?
@RedOak Haha, that would be great! I wouldn't answer these questions for any amount of money, but I would love to watch someone else do this.
@RedOak http://www.justice.gov/oip/foia-guide-2004-edition-reverse-foia
It would conceivably prevent dissemination of the data you supplied in completing the survey being integrated into the aggregate, but I do not see an easy way to be remunerated . . . Perhaps an innovative filing addressing the Paperwork Reduction Act seeking an award . . . Although I'd bet that would get kicked.
now that I think about it, meh keeps asking how we listen to music in the shower and weird shit like that...
@Lotsofgoats
@Kleineleh Matthew always said Irk is bigger than we think. He tried to warn us.
How is the government supposed to work for us if they know nothing about us. It's your civic duty to respond.
Maybe if you tell them you missed a day of work last week, the Feds will make a 4-day work week the norm!
@medz No. That is backward. I want the govt doing less, not more. The Feds should have no role whatsoever in setting the work week. At most it is an issue for states, if that, preferably not even that.
The bigger the govt, the smaller the people.
@RedOak So you're saying an employer should have the right to force their employees work whatever hours they choose? Sure, the employee could just quit and work somewhere else if they didn't like it, but what if ALL employers started saying you had to work 7 days a week 10 hours a day or else you'd be fired? What if the employer said you had to be around hazardous chemicals with no kind of precautions?
Thanks to the government, we don't have to worry about all that. Thanks, big government!
Really? Seriously? Maybe they want to know the time you leave for work because that fucking affects every single other person who fucking leaves for work around the same time, unless you're the only one on a fucking jetpack. And maybe knowing when you leave for work would or wouldn't correlate with other people and someone could think, "Hey, maybe we can make some repairs or add some services or improve some road conditions and we'll know when and where to do that or even when and where to not do that." God fucking forbid they shift money from where it isn't needed to where it fucking is, you know?
Send it to me. I would fucking love the chance to get "Big Government" (that is a really stupid phrase) to do something on my behalf for once. Fucking idiot teabaggers have been stripping government of every fucking good thing it can do for a fucking decade and you're all "Well, I'm going to make sure no one listens to me." The distilled stupidity in this thread pisses me off like nothing has in years. Fucking send it to me.
Perhaps my stupidity has been distilled down to absolute purity, but are you saying we should just give up all of our personal information without thought or question because it MIGHT help someone somewhere?
@hallmike But it does help someone: those people tasked with shredding/burning the paper copies of the forms after they are entered in the computer. They now know your address, the stuff you probably have in your house, and the best time to break in while you are at work.
@editorkid you mean you don't have your own jet pack? peasant.
@editorkid
I could debate the finer points piece by piece, but instead I'll say this - By all means, look around at who has commented here and call it "distilled idiocy" or assume that anyone who values their privacy is a "fucking idiot teabagger." Fill out that survey if it shows up to your house - that's all your prerogative.
You were the first person to name call people in this thread. People that are a part of your community. If you had a point, perhaps even a valid one, it was lost in your need to insult people.
@Thumperchick I name call here sometimes, but only if entitled bitches whine about missing a fuku.
Just thought I'd share.
“To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity [his fellow man] in contempt [for their belief], is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.” - Thomas Paine
@editorkid By all means, please publish your home address here so we can all forward our surveys to you.
Clearly personal privacy is not a big thing for you.
(Notice that was done without any name calling or personal insults.)
@RedOak forgot the R in @ editorkid
@editorkid That's what I'm saying. They need to know when to have police and EMTs on shift. They need to know how many people are driving when and where to improve the infrastructure. We're all on the same team here. People get so paranoid.
@connorbush thanks. The 'Reply' function was not working. It opened and immediately closed the box so I tried to enter the ID manually. So be it. Life is too short for this hassle. ;-)
@editorkid @medz
“The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.”
Godwin's law FTW.
@justbuyit Ooooh. A neat sounding quote. You MUST be right. :smirk:
I respect the government, they do a lot. My last salary was funded 100% by a Federal grant. And a governement needs to be in touch with its people to function properly. This particular survey, however, is overreaching at best. It is not equipped to provide any helpful information about traffic flow, street repairs, or placement of emergency personnel. Even if it were, our governments are tiered for a reason- that information could be found much more efficiently from the State DOT and local Streets Departments. Or, I dunno, by looking at a traffic camera or two?
But for the information gathered in this survey to be at all usable in those ways, if would have to be a significant sample and immediately implementable. Traffic and emergency needs are constantly in flux. The survey samples a little over 1% of the entire US population each year. Evenly dispersed, that's 70,000 households per state. My city alone has a population well over a million which already makes the data irrelevant on a local level and impotent at the federal level for any kind of practical application.
Yes, it can be rationalized a hundred different ways, but there is really no reason anyone needs to know at what times I as an individual leave my house unoccupied and how long it takes me to get back.
@medz
In furtherance of polite discourse and in lieu of anyone having to look up through the thread for the specific post (quote), here it is:
IMO, I think you may have missed the point that @justbuyit was making. Adolf Hitler is the person quoted. Godwin's law is an Internet adage asserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches - that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism."
Hence, @justbuyit invoking, comically I believe, Godwin's law "for the win" by using the quote from Hitler.
IMHO, the quote is astoundingly apropos to this specific discussion . . . And yes, Hitler **was right. **
There's no basis in law for the survey . . . And by NOT saying or doing something, we as citizens allow subtle erosion of our rights.
The bottom line is that the survey asks for more information, and at a higher frequency, than the simple enumeration required by U.S. Constitution Article I Section 2.
Despite the GAO's conclusion that the Census Bureau has the authority to conduct the survey under 13 U.S.C. § 141 and 13 U.S.C. § 193, MANY U.S. representatives have challenged the ACS as unauthorized by the Census Act and violative of the Right to Financial Privacy Act. The Justice Department refuses to pursue any sanction / action against any person refusing the survey, as the ONLY place this debate will finally end is in the Supreme Court, and the government knows they can't win this one without amending the Constitution (the first past of that last sentence being verifiable fact and the second part obviously my personal opinion).
The founding fathers of the United States never authorized the federal government to continuously survey the American people. Period.
If they did, and I missed it, please point it out to me - because I can't find it.
@tHumperChick - Can you please fix my bold formatting error in paragraph three of my reply above?
** was right ** is messed up - Thanks.
@Pavlov Since we're already talking Hitler...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I remember my crazy college History/Government class correctly, Hitler was able to rise to power on the promise of bettering the economy and general day-to day well-being of the German people. Then utilized the census as one of his tools to weed out and track down the 12 million of those people he deemed undesirable
@Kleineleh See the book IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation by investigative journalist Edwin Black which details the business dealings of the American-based multinational corporation International Business Machines (IBM) and its German and other European subsidiaries with the government of Adolf Hitler during the 1930s and the years of World War II.
In the book, Black outlines the way in which IBM's technology helped facilitate Nazi genocide through generation and tabulation of punch cards based upon national census data.
@Pavlov Yes! That's it! He did a lecture at the Holocaust Museum when I was in college and we were talking about it in class. At least, I assume it was the same guy, the lecture had that same title. Didn't realize it was a whole book, though, I'll have to look for it
@medz I'm not into this fight, except by being entertained, but this is ...
There are FAR better ways of gathering this data, such as looking at how many crimes are committed per hour, ambulances called, traffic accidents, traffic flow speeds, etc.
They already KNOW this info. They've known it for decades. A survey adds nothing to decades of records.
There may be many justifications for the survey - these examples don't seem to fit.
i'm just going to go ahead and break the tension in this thread with this adorable dog + bunny picture.
@connorbush oh god no!! what kind of psycho put ketchup on a burger???
@carl669 The kind who really was looking forward to the taste of a tomato on her burger, but discovered one of The Children Who Would Not Leave had eaten the last one. It is an act of desperation, and not as bad as one would imagine.
@carl669 Are you saying you dont use ketchup? I dont think we can be friends.
@darkzrobe i can't actually remember the last time i used ketchup on purpose. on my burgers, i like mayo and mustard. on my hot dogs, mustard and other topping (ketchup does not belong on a hot dog). for fries, the places i usually go have there own fry sauce (usually mayo + sriracha). so, i don't really see a need for ketchup.
@carl669 I kind of love that we have nazi references, cute bunny pics, and a condiment debate all in one thread here
@Kleineleh yeah. we're a very agile group. either that or our attention spans just suck.
@Kleineleh @carl669 - I know the image is faked from a color photo without the ears, but all it lacks is the ketchup.
@carl669 When I moved to ill-annoy and they started bleating at me when I put ketchup on a hot dog, I just wrote it up to provincial tastes. Ketchup is an awesome condiment, works well with ground beef and various sausages, and of course numerous fried foods.
There are burger combos that don't need ketchup, and those that are made stellar by its presence. Same with hot dogs. Open minds, open appetites.
BTW ever had sour cream as a condiment on hamburgers? With grilled mushrooms and onions its surprisingly tasty (that combo doesn't need ketchup).
@duodec THIS on a burger, is heavenly.
@Pavlov Interesting; I'll put it on the shopping list to try.
There used to be a 'hamburger buffet' place in Las Vegas; it opened to acclaim, grew too fast, and collapsed. Their condiment bar was where I learned to love sour cream on a burger. They must have had 50-60 ingredients on that bar...
@duodec Sour cream makes everything better. Try it on fruit pie sometime.
As someone who uses your tax dollars as personal income and then sends much of it to Meh, I can tell you the ACS is useful. Here are people smarter than me and can say it more concisely. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/05/20/sunday-review/the-debate-over-the-american-community-survey.html
@kennethdegraff thanks for that info. I also have been paid by your tax dollars (thanks for that!) and spent a large portion of that time collecting, compiling, submitting, and assessing my clients' personal information. I will concede that the information can be useful, but its value as such is severely outweighed by its potential to be abused, in my opinion.
We have got those before, we just throw them in the trash. You don't have to answer, if you don't want to. This other stuff, the truth is, the folks who pay, at some point in their life, always start to feel bitter, cause the folks who receive, never feel like they receive enough.
I worked for the census decades ago, in one of the "big count" years.
I personally find these extended surveys invasive and offensive.
As a practical response, write (call also if you want, but write) your congresscritter with a complaint, and send a copy to the census bureau if you wish. (It does not matter if you hate your congressperson or not.)
Throw the survey in the recycle bin.
If a census worker shows up at your door, tell that person you have complained to your congressperson/senator in writing, and ask them to leave.
Or just skip writing to congress, but tell the census worker that you did.
@f00l Writing to my sad excuse for a senator in opposition to something has earned me a response thanking me for supporting them in their support for that something. If I write to him complaining about this survey, I'll get added into his 'in favor' column when he brags about hearing barely any opposition from his constituents... the other senator I only get auto response from.
At least the congress critter actually responds on what I said, not on their own agenda.
@duodec
i know, there are dangers in writing to congresscritters. They might ignore the laws that apply to everone else, and robo-dial you during elections. Etc.
However if you complain about the census to a member of congress, they are supposed to communicate that info to the census bureau. In that case the census bureau is supposed to not ask for any info beyond the most basic.
@f00l I think I did write to them last time (one still the same, the other two different); sadly the one thats the same is the one who does the 'thank you for supporting me!' crap to those who disagree with him.
Still, its worth doing again. Shutting up, lying down, and complying is what the pols want from their 'subjects'.
I received one of these in the mail last year. I ignored it as if it were junk mail. I am not the owner of the house, and I figured if they really wanted someone to respond they would get in touch with the owner who lived at a separate address.
A month or so later, I received a letter stating that if I didn't return the survey I could be penalized. I tossed it in the circle file to be sorted later. Again, not the owner of the house.
A few weeks later, I came home from work and there was an unmarked Crown Vic parked in front of my house with a guy I didn't recognize sitting in it. He was staring at my front door. I hadn't pulled into the driveway yet, so I just rolled right by. I called the cops to have a zone car drive by and check him out (but living in a major city and being the peak rush hour, they didn't actually drive by till well after he was gone). I went and ran a few errands and came back two hours later to find that the man had left. No note on the door. No indication of who he was or why he was watching my house. I haven't committed any federal crimes lately, so I have no idea who it could be.
Two weeks later, rainy day, same car, same guy sitting in front of the house. I roll right by again, however I am forced to head back to the house because I have an appointment later in the evening. As I back into the garage the guy gets out of his car and starts quickly walking up the driveway. He's in jeans and a jacket holding a briefcase. I throw the car in park and open the door to yell "Stop!" The guy keeps coming. I stand up behind the car door and yell again "STOP!" He gets the message this time. I instruct him to slowly walk backwards until he is in the street and he complies. I ask him who the hell he is and why he is watching my house. He explains that he's with the census and wants to know about the letter they sent a while back. I call bullshit and ask for an ID. He conveniently doesn't have any. He instead pulls out a small laptop and starts inquiring about how many people live in the house (he is standing in the street in the rain I am still behind the car door under the eave of the garage). I tell him to go pound salt and that if I ever see him on my property again, I won't hesitate to shoot. He gets in his car and drives away. I never saw him again.
If stalking my house is how they want to get their information, they can go screw. I refuse to participate.
I have had the US Census Bureau come to my door every year for past five years they keep asking more personal questions. Im fuckin tired of it. They just came to my back door, was on phone so I just looked at woman closed the shade and ignored her.
Last year I got mad at guy, when he ask me " Do you use bathroom ok". I told him to mind his own business, then I called census bureau told them to leave me the hell alone. I am a military vet and do not need that aggravation.
Who in the hell do they think they are. This is a democracy not authoritarian govt.
@laura70
When this happens, calls the census bureau and complain. Then call your Congressperson and complain. Don’t skip the second step.
If a census worker bothers you again, tell them you complained already to a member of Congress and will do so again.
The census is supposed to keep a list of people who have complained to someone in Congress, and to leave them alone except for the most basic questionaire.
The funding for the Communuty Development Block Grant (and many other Federal programs) is distributed based on census data. Eligibility for various funding streams may be based on population (for example, communities with populations over 50,000 per census are eligible for a formulaic share of the CDBG pot). The number of people per the census in your community of various low income, disability, elderly or special needs populations determines the share of funding that your community gets targeted to these groups. Last I heard the average census based per capita funding distribution was $1,700, and that was more than 10 years ago, so I’d imagine it’s at least $2,000 now. Whether you think these funding pots should exist or not is a whole other kettle of worms. But the fact is that every person who does not complete the census under our current allocations method is donating about $2,000 of their community’s share of tax dollars to some other community whose members do complete the census. Without a doubt shortfalls in Federal allocations affect local economies and likely result in higher property taxes and fees to balance the local checkbook. So please, exercise your right to civil disobedience and skip the census. My community could use the money.
@moondrake The Community Development Block Grant disbursement utilizes an algorithm that is not solely dependent upon census data.
@Pavlov I don’t know what the criteria/algorithm is today (bad on me), but some years ago when our neighborhood was applying for ‘Model Blocks’ CDBG funding the census data was a heavy early discriminator. Local gov’t was also deeply involved with screening/disbursement/allocation.
@compunaut Correct. Last I heard, eligibility for a community’s inclusion was based exclusively on census data. I worked for CDBG for three decades and each four years we’d see a dramatic drop in our funding as more communities passed the 50,000 population mark and got added to the recipients list. Then the pool of money is divided based on a complex algorithm I never pretended to understand but which also draws many of its inputs from census data. Once we got the money, project selection was made at the local level. But physical projects such as street and drainage improvements, street lighting, park improvements, etc. which account for the bulk of the spending had to be located in low-to-moderate income (80% or less of the community average) census tracts and in some cases block groups, determined using exclusively census data. Social services, economic projects (such as job training) and special needs facility improvements (such as senior centers and homeless shelters) were eligible based on serving exclusively populations pre-determined to meet income standards. The census is the primary tool used in determining eligibility for communities and individual projects for CDBG grant funds. There are other federal funds similarly tied to census data but I am not as familiar with them.
@moondrake @compunaut It wasn’t until FY 2003 that 2000 Census data were fully introduced into the CDBG allocation formula. That was the first time in history that the full data log was actually used / considered. That formula (used in FY 2003 which relied solely on census data) was such a disaster that HUD actually issued a formal report in Feb. 2005 offering a host of alternative formula for Congress to entertain (4 or 5 options were finally recommended IIRC). The current formula does use census data as a discriminator, but for entitlement cities above 50,000 population the OMB now uses their own discriminators to qualify under section 102 and census data is not as heavily weighed as it once was (although it is still used for early discrimination). HUD has stated in court that they recognize that Pursuant to Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution that the only information the federal government is empowered to request from the people during any census is the total number of (full time) occupants at any address. Therefore, several lower courts have recently ruled that HUD must use alternative data points / sources in qualifying entitlements (other than census data) as the “alternative” (extended) Community Survey dataset may in fact be unconstitutional.
I know a lot of this only because of litigation I was a party to last year . . . which is a whole other long story.
This thread is soooo necro . . .
@Pavlov
Naw it’s not necro it’s vampire.
@Pavlov it is and yet I’m catching shit for necroing a different thread with reasonable justification thereof. Go figure.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@jbartus It’s just because we love you.
@Pavlov I’ll just bet when I’m gone you guys miss me too… with every shot.
@jbartus
If you leave without ever being Goated, that loss will drive me straight to drink.
Hello, Wellingtons from Woot!
@f00l after some discussions ongoing tonight that might just happen.
@jbartus
Sorry to hear. I know you wish for respite from the recent. … uh … November “event”. Did someone go threre? Or is it the lively conversation in the thread about slippers? Or the firearms discussion in this thread? Something else?
Don’t want you to leave. Even if I never succeeed in getting you Goated.
Bye miles to go before home. won’t be till poss around midnight.
@f00l let’s just say I am not sure I have as much in common with everybody here as I thought I did. Political differences are not a factor or I would have been gone long ago. I’ll probably get over it.
@jbartus Dude, if we didn’t like you, we wouldn’t flip you shit. You’re smart enough to understand that goat is really a badge of honor. Plus you haven’t even been goated yet.
@jbartus
Well it sux that something got your attention in a less than admirable way.
I hope it’s not the teasing of Phatmass? He’s playing into this on purpose.
I guess it would be cool - please me - if you decided over time that a few of us are still tolerable, and still somewhat in touch with our “better angels”.
But ya gotta do what ya gotta do.
@Pavlov it’s nothing anyone did to me. Don’t worry!
@f00l I was helping with said teasing. As I said I’ll probably get over the thing that’s bothering me, just reevaluating some stuff.
@jbartus Okie dokie - just remember, you’re family here now, and as such you put up with crazy stoned uncles, weird cousins and stupid shit you wouldn’t tolerate from friends. That what family do.
@Pavlov haha, I’ll try to keep that in mind.
@f00l @Pavlov Scan thru the Retailer Meltdown thread. Don’t want to speak for him, but I think potential dishonest/unethical behavior by Mehtizens has jbartus feeling disappointed.
@compunaut
Ok. Still on the road. Not up on mah readin’. Gassing old decrepit vehicle. Damn warm day got dark and quite chilly. And I’m too idiotic to put a coat on.
@Pavlov - “weird cousins” huh?
Just a figure of speech or you got anyone in mind?
@compunaut Thanks. Skimmed it. Get it now.
@f00l
Yes.
@Pavlov
Aren’t you just the picture of innocence now.