Via World Magazine and the Associated Press.
Citing "firm intelligence" reports, Israel is warning its citizens to leave the Sinai region. There are approximately 1,200 Israelis believed to be in the region, and the intelligence reports suggest that they are likely going to be targets for kidnapping.
Developing...
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
I Have House Guests
On the Saturday night before Easter, my wife hung a pair of Easter Wreaths on our front door. We had family from both our sides over on Easter Sunday, and on Monday we took all of the spawn down to the beachhouse for some spring break R&R.I stepped out the front door yesterday morning, and was sternly scolded for my transgression by:
These are House Wrens. Apparently, they're voracious little predators and eat all sorts of nasty, scum-of-the-earth little creatures like cockroaches, bloodsucking mosquitos, and liberal statists.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Civil War?
The term "civil war" has been used so many times in the mainstream media that people are beginning to think "civil war" every time they hear the word "Iraq." The truth is that, by any reasonably well accepted historical definition of the term civil war, no such conflict ever existed in Iraq. The truth is also that the prospects of the conflict ever descending into a civil war were minimal and are still diminishing by the day.
Let's get a few things out of the way, first. We let historians do history and we let the journalists do journalism. The main stream media doesn't do a very good job of analyzing history. Journalists naturally make lousy historians, despite the fact that the history of conflict is largely written from the accounts of journalists. The reason why journalists make lousy historians because they lack the academic background that historians use to put events in historical perspective. Furthermore, most historians subject their scholarly works to peers for review and criticism, a completely alien concept to journalists. Historians don't scoop one another. The journalist's job is to record events and tell the story as accurately as possible, before a competing journalist beats him to to it.
Historians interpret the stories of journalists. Historians though, make lousy journalists. Instead of focusing on reporting the facts of a story, a historian is more likely to get bogged down in the historical significance of it all. The historian tries to put things in proper historical perspective, potentially missing the opportunity to collect collaborative or contradictory factual information that might put his conclusions at doubt. He's fettered by a plodding, academic pace that seeks truth rather than disseminating the news.
Put it this way. A journalist can be forgiven for getting the story wrong if he didn't have all of the facts at the time he went to press. A historian can't get it wrong, because he's supposed to have or find all of the facts, analyze and interpret, share with colleagues, and reach consensus on what really happened.
Isn't specialization great?
Historians generally agree that armed conflicts range from general unrest and rioting to all out revolutionary and civil war. The conflicts are regarded as revolutions when the overthrow of the established government is a possible, even if unlikely outcome of the conflict. If we compare the conflict in Iraq with other modern-era conflicts that historians have recognized as civil war, it becomes clear that Iraq's conflict was not even close to being, or even becoming a civil war.
Lebanese Civil War, 1975-1991. The Lebanese Civil War was fought between Christian and Muslim militias, along with the involvement of Syria, Israel, The Palestine Liberation Organization and the Iranian-backed Hezbollah. Throughout much of the bloody conflict, each warring faction had control over significant portions of territory, with the Christians controlling the northwestern coastal regions, the Muslim/PLO factions controlling the southern coastal regions, and Syrian forces holding the eastern and northern regions. Territorial boundaries shifted regularly during the conflict through the 1970's and early 1980's, as did patterns of support from the various outside factions. The conflict was prolonged and bloody, with all sides suffering significant casualties during pitched battles. Each side had clearly defined systems of command and control of military forces. Each side had clearly identified political leaders, political infrastructure, and a measure of public support from part of the population. Most importantly, each side had the capacity (through internal or external means) to raise, train, equip and deploy military forces. The conflict ended in 1991, when the militias dissolved following several key engagements and political developments in 1990.
Spanish Civil War, 1936-1939. The bloody Spanish Civil War devastated Spain and served as a testing ground for German military technology and tactics. The three-year conflict ended when the Nationalists overthrew the government and established a Nationalist Dictatorship under Generalissimo Francisco Franco. The atrocities of this conflict were among some of the worst in history (to be exceeded only by the Second World War). There was widescale use of terror tactics, including bombings, assassinations, and the targeting and execution of religious and civil leaders. As in the Lebanese conflict, both sides controlled major geographic regions of the country and enjoyed the popular support of some segment of the Spanish population. The patterns of external support also show significant ideological characteristics, with leftists backing the "Republicanos" and right wing support of the Nationalists. Germany and Italy supported the Nationalists; The Soviet Union and, to an extent Mexico, supported the Republicanos. Both sides fielded significant armies that were well equipped, well trained and commanded effectively. Both sides had clear political leaders and clear lines of command and control over the military forces. There were tens of thousands of casualties caused by pitched battles of historical and strategic significance.
Do you see any similarities whatsoever between the current conflict in Iraq and two of the most studied civil wars in modern world history?
Who were the political leaders of the insurgency?
What territories, or provinces, of Iraq were controlled by the insurgents?
What military capabilities did the insurgents have?
Were they capable of fielding a well equipped, well trained and effectively commanded army in battle?
What were the political objectives of the insurgents?
What level of popular support did the warring factions have?
Honest, historical interpretation of the 2004-2009 insurgency in Iraq clearly produces the conclusion that it was not a Civil War. It was protracted. It was bloody. And Iraq's future as a stable entity was in question until the 2007 infusion of combat troops known as "the surge." But at no time did the insurgents speak of their political goals, and there were no readily identifiable leaders of the insurgency. There were rag-tag militia commanders, but no single, unifying political force. At no time did the insurgents have control of any significant geographic territory. They were able to--temporarily--operate with impunity in certain regions of the country and sectors of Bagdad, but there were no geographic regions one could point to on a map and say, "this was the coalition's territory, and this was the insurgents' territory." The insurgents had virtually no organized military capability. They could not field an army, nor could they sustain operations in a prolonged, pitched battle. The insurgency had no clear lines of command and control. And, since Iraqis themselves were often the targets of insurgents' operations, there was little popular support within the areas the insurgents were operating in. Indeed, as soon as coaltion forces established a presence within a disputed region or zone, the people of the area quickly collaborated and provided intelligence on the insurgents locations, numbers and capabilities.
The conflict in Iraq is properly described as an insurrection or an insurgency. Had the insurgents gained enough political support and military capability, the conflict could have escalated into a civil war, but at no time was it one.
This however, has not stopped journalists from delcaring that Iraq was in the throes of civil war. The mantra was repeated during the political battles in the US leading up to and during the surge of troops that ended the conflict. Indeed, none of the journalists pounding the "civil war" drums are even willing to admit that the conflict is all but over, and that the good guys won.
Glenn Beck and Paul Ryan, 04/12/10
Audio Link:
The Right Scoop- Glenn Beck with Paul Ryan.
It's a 12+ minute segment, but it's worth the time to listen through. There's a little red meat at around the 2:00 mark, where host and guest both agree that progressivism "is a cancer." That set the lefty blogs into a bona fide conniption.
The impetus for the segment was a post at Hot Air, wherein that blog's resident mooshy moderate misinterprets Ryan's Oklahoma speech and calls him a "conservative progressive," or "progressive conservative," or some other equally oxymoronic half-breed between good and evil. Beck, after reading the post, went nuclear on Ryan. Ryan's people contacted Beck, Beck had him on the show, and a new alliance was formed.
The Right Scoop- Glenn Beck with Paul Ryan.
It's a 12+ minute segment, but it's worth the time to listen through. There's a little red meat at around the 2:00 mark, where host and guest both agree that progressivism "is a cancer." That set the lefty blogs into a bona fide conniption.
The impetus for the segment was a post at Hot Air, wherein that blog's resident mooshy moderate misinterprets Ryan's Oklahoma speech and calls him a "conservative progressive," or "progressive conservative," or some other equally oxymoronic half-breed between good and evil. Beck, after reading the post, went nuclear on Ryan. Ryan's people contacted Beck, Beck had him on the show, and a new alliance was formed.
Another painful mortgage crunch coming?
In 2007, Credit Suisse released an unusually frank and dismal report (PDF) on what the institution saw was a coming wave of adjustable rate mortgage resets. Adjustable rate mortgages, or ARM's, "reset" when their terms call for a review of the mortgage terms and changes in the interest rates and payments are made, if necessary. Factors influencing the magnitude of ARM term changes include the borrowers' credit histories, market interest rates and other effects. As we saw in 2008 and 2009, the report was as accurate as the ensuing meltdown was painful.
But as Credit Suisse continues to warn, it's not over, yet. In the updated chart below, ARM resets are going to be a problem for several years to come. While the percentage of sub-prime loans in the future waves of resets are smaller than those in the 2008-2009 crisis, there are large numbers of shaky mortgages left on the horizon, and the horizon is closing quickly. From 2010 through 2012, more than $1 trillion in ARM's will reset. Pay particular attention to the proportion of unsecured and Option ARM's:
(Click the image for a larger view)
This does not mean that another trillion dollar meltdown is coming. At least not necessarily, based on the information available. This is part of the uncertainty the financial markets face--there is no single clearinghouse for third-party data on the mortgage market like we have for stocks, bonds and Treasury securities. Credit Suisse's estimate is a best guess calculation, based on its knowledge of the markets. Their 2007 prescience is enough to convince me that, if they say a problem could be looming, there probably is.
What economists do know is this:
So, when will we know whether it's time to head for the hills? Look for the first indications in late spring to early summer, 2010, but don't expect to wake up one morning to breaking news of an impending meltdown. The process will take place over a nearly two year period, characterized by increasing personal debt levels, credit default rates and foreclosures. If the economic activity improves dramatically between now and the end of the year, the next round of resets might only cause a minor second dip in the current recession (where a few quarters of growth are followed by a few quarters of anemic or negative growth). But if the current economic conditions are still in place by January 2011, there could be blood in the streets.
But as Credit Suisse continues to warn, it's not over, yet. In the updated chart below, ARM resets are going to be a problem for several years to come. While the percentage of sub-prime loans in the future waves of resets are smaller than those in the 2008-2009 crisis, there are large numbers of shaky mortgages left on the horizon, and the horizon is closing quickly. From 2010 through 2012, more than $1 trillion in ARM's will reset. Pay particular attention to the proportion of unsecured and Option ARM's:
(Click the image for a larger view)
This does not mean that another trillion dollar meltdown is coming. At least not necessarily, based on the information available. This is part of the uncertainty the financial markets face--there is no single clearinghouse for third-party data on the mortgage market like we have for stocks, bonds and Treasury securities. Credit Suisse's estimate is a best guess calculation, based on its knowledge of the markets. Their 2007 prescience is enough to convince me that, if they say a problem could be looming, there probably is.
What economists do know is this:
- The economy is not well situated to absorb the impacts of another financial crisis. Unemployment remains high; business confidence levels remain low.
- Interest rates are likely headed higher over the next year or so, which means the ARM resets will be flying right into a period of higher interest rates, causing mortgage payments to increase and more homeowners to get squeezed.
- The Homeowners Affordable Refinance Program, designed to help borrowers refinance risky loans, has failed miserably. It could have taken a lot of sting off of the coming round of resets.
- The Option and unsecuritized ARM's in the chart are major portions of the instruments that are resetting (these are the most likely to go into default, all other things being equal).
- There is not enough money for a TARP II.
So, when will we know whether it's time to head for the hills? Look for the first indications in late spring to early summer, 2010, but don't expect to wake up one morning to breaking news of an impending meltdown. The process will take place over a nearly two year period, characterized by increasing personal debt levels, credit default rates and foreclosures. If the economic activity improves dramatically between now and the end of the year, the next round of resets might only cause a minor second dip in the current recession (where a few quarters of growth are followed by a few quarters of anemic or negative growth). But if the current economic conditions are still in place by January 2011, there could be blood in the streets.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Palin plays Obama
Sarah Palin played Barack Obama like a $10 flute.
On Monday, April 05, 2010, President Obama released his new Nuclear Posture Review, which Charles Krauthammer politely calls "morally bizarre and strategically loopy."
Knowing that she was going to speak at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans on Friday, April 09, 2010, Ms. Palin had this to say on Wednesday, April 07, 2010, regarding the President's new policy and the new START treaty with Russia:
"It's unbelievable. Unbelievable. It's kinda like getting out there on a playground, a bunch of kids, getting ready to fight, and one of the kids saying, 'Go ahead, punch me in the face and I'm not going to retaliate. Go ahead and do what you want to with me.' "
Teh One, right on cue, had this to say in response, on Thursday, April 08, 2010:
“I really have no response to that. The last I checked, Sarah Palin is not much of an expert on nuclear issues.”
And on Friday, April 09, 2010, Ms. Palin gave her remarks to a cheering crowd at the SRLC:
"And President Obama, with all that vast nuclear expertise he acquired as a community organizer, a part-time senator, and a candidate for president, has accomplished nothing to date with Iran or North Korea!"
Heh. Brilliantly Played.
via Gateway Pundit, it looks like Mr. Obama's policy is not quite the final word he thought he said it was, or something. All bets that were on could be off again, kind of like how the time for talking about how the time for talking being over, is like, well... over and stuff.
Palin: 1
Obama: 0
On Monday, April 05, 2010, President Obama released his new Nuclear Posture Review, which Charles Krauthammer politely calls "morally bizarre and strategically loopy."
Knowing that she was going to speak at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans on Friday, April 09, 2010, Ms. Palin had this to say on Wednesday, April 07, 2010, regarding the President's new policy and the new START treaty with Russia:
"It's unbelievable. Unbelievable. It's kinda like getting out there on a playground, a bunch of kids, getting ready to fight, and one of the kids saying, 'Go ahead, punch me in the face and I'm not going to retaliate. Go ahead and do what you want to with me.' "
Teh One, right on cue, had this to say in response, on Thursday, April 08, 2010:
“I really have no response to that. The last I checked, Sarah Palin is not much of an expert on nuclear issues.”
And on Friday, April 09, 2010, Ms. Palin gave her remarks to a cheering crowd at the SRLC:
"And President Obama, with all that vast nuclear expertise he acquired as a community organizer, a part-time senator, and a candidate for president, has accomplished nothing to date with Iran or North Korea!"
Heh. Brilliantly Played.
via Gateway Pundit, it looks like Mr. Obama's policy is not quite the final word he thought he said it was, or something. All bets that were on could be off again, kind of like how the time for talking about how the time for talking being over, is like, well... over and stuff.
Palin: 1
Obama: 0
Will Obamacare reach the SCOTUS?
Legal scholars and court historians are divided on the question of whether the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will reach the US Supreme Court, and divisions are just as deep on the question of whether the court will strike the measure down as unconstitutional.
Regardless of where you fall on the question, don't expect quick resolution.
In this story at The Hill citing an interview on MSNBC, Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning says he believes the fruit won't be ripe for at least a year:
In an interview on MSNBC, Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning (R) said that he believes the challenge filed Tuesday will reach the nation's highest court as soon as a year from now.
"We filed it in the Northern District of Florida...We expect it will go onto the 11th Circuit and on to the Supreme Court," he said. "That takes a while, probably 12 to 18 months but I think it would go all the way."
Idaho's AG, Lawrence Wasden, is a little more optimistic, saying 11-13 months in comments he made to the Huffington Post.
The Northern District of Florida is argued to be the quickest route to the high court. I won't dispute that because as a lawyer, I make a great blogger and political observer. One of the things I've observed is that the Northern District of Florida is in the 11th Circuit, and the 11th Circuit is assigned to Clarence Thomas, one of the Court's most reliable conservatives. Thomas will thus have great influence on whether the Court takes the matter up and when.
It's not a stretch to see the legal battle and election year politics play out over the same timeline. The issue will certainly be at the forefront of November's mid-term elections. Shortly after that fight's dust settles, the positioning of potential 2012 presidential candidates will begin, probably about the same time that appeals and decisions move the legal challenges forward (or stop them dead).
Opponents of the bill are in for at least a year of legal wrangling, with the outcome and its aftermath probably not known until frontrunners are emerging for the parties' nomination for President.
Regardless of where you fall on the question, don't expect quick resolution.
In this story at The Hill citing an interview on MSNBC, Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning says he believes the fruit won't be ripe for at least a year:
In an interview on MSNBC, Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning (R) said that he believes the challenge filed Tuesday will reach the nation's highest court as soon as a year from now.
"We filed it in the Northern District of Florida...We expect it will go onto the 11th Circuit and on to the Supreme Court," he said. "That takes a while, probably 12 to 18 months but I think it would go all the way."
Idaho's AG, Lawrence Wasden, is a little more optimistic, saying 11-13 months in comments he made to the Huffington Post.
The Northern District of Florida is argued to be the quickest route to the high court. I won't dispute that because as a lawyer, I make a great blogger and political observer. One of the things I've observed is that the Northern District of Florida is in the 11th Circuit, and the 11th Circuit is assigned to Clarence Thomas, one of the Court's most reliable conservatives. Thomas will thus have great influence on whether the Court takes the matter up and when.
It's not a stretch to see the legal battle and election year politics play out over the same timeline. The issue will certainly be at the forefront of November's mid-term elections. Shortly after that fight's dust settles, the positioning of potential 2012 presidential candidates will begin, probably about the same time that appeals and decisions move the legal challenges forward (or stop them dead).
Opponents of the bill are in for at least a year of legal wrangling, with the outcome and its aftermath probably not known until frontrunners are emerging for the parties' nomination for President.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Stevens Retirement = Conservative Opportunity
Not an opportunity to gain ground--no one expects John Paul Stevens' replacement to fundamentally alter the ideological makeup of the court. However, the confirmation fight could get heated and ugly if Teh One decides to go all out and nominate a hard-left radical.
Senate conservatives could use this to make the hay fly, adding the nomination of a radical to a long and growing list of hard left, out-of-touch transgressions. Overly liberal, far-reaching federal courts are favored targets of conservatives and the argument has traction with independents who don't much care for radical swings in either direction.
Unless Obama nominates a Center Wing Nut Job and bona fide moderate, Conservatives should try to paint the prospective nominee as another Goodwin Liu, or perhaps Obama's version of Robert Bork. Let the fight drag through the summer, let it get as ugly as it needs to be, and let's see how it all shakes out in November.
Senate conservatives could use this to make the hay fly, adding the nomination of a radical to a long and growing list of hard left, out-of-touch transgressions. Overly liberal, far-reaching federal courts are favored targets of conservatives and the argument has traction with independents who don't much care for radical swings in either direction.
Unless Obama nominates a Center Wing Nut Job and bona fide moderate, Conservatives should try to paint the prospective nominee as another Goodwin Liu, or perhaps Obama's version of Robert Bork. Let the fight drag through the summer, let it get as ugly as it needs to be, and let's see how it all shakes out in November.
Healthcare Hemorrhage Update
Figures are in millions and are up to date through Friday, April 9, 2010.
That's now 24 companies announcing $3.332 billion in charge-offs related to ObamaCare's new tax provisions. With a US median family income around $50,000 this represents the equivalent of approximately 67,000. Steelcase and DTE Energy were also expected to announce the impact of ObamaCare on their earnings, but had not announced as of 04/09/10.
Stay tuned for future updates, and if you know of a publicly traded company announcing earnings charges related to the new policy, please tweet me at @GulfCoastTider.
| Company | Charge |
| Kroger | $2 |
| Allegheny Technologies | $5 |
| Carpenter Technology | $6 |
| Goodrich | $10 |
| Honeywell | $13 |
| Xcel Energy | $17 |
| Valero | $20 |
| Illinois Tool | $22 |
| Eaton | $25 |
| AK Steel | $31 |
| Ingersoll Rand | $41 |
| Exelon | $65 |
| Alcoa | $80 |
| Brush Materials | $85 |
| PPG | $85 |
| 3M | $90 |
| Lockheed Martin | $95 |
| Caterpillar | $100 |
| Prudential | $100 |
| Boeing | $150 |
| Deere | $150 |
| Wheeling Steel | $170 |
| Verizon | $970 |
| AT&T | $1,000 |
| To Date: | $3,332 |
That's now 24 companies announcing $3.332 billion in charge-offs related to ObamaCare's new tax provisions. With a US median family income around $50,000 this represents the equivalent of approximately 67,000. Steelcase and DTE Energy were also expected to announce the impact of ObamaCare on their earnings, but had not announced as of 04/09/10.
Stay tuned for future updates, and if you know of a publicly traded company announcing earnings charges related to the new policy, please tweet me at @GulfCoastTider.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
American Communist Survey
Stop me if you've heard this one, before.
Ok, you can't stop me. But please read the whole post. I'm still pissed.
So, about six weeks ago, I get this 679,812 page survey, innocuously called the "American Community Survey," from the US Census Bureau. I opened it up and started looking at it, and I could not believe the invasiveness of this thing. Not only do they want to know how many people live here, they want to know their ages, races, marital status, physical problems (like the ability to walk or climb stairs and leave the house alone) and all kinds of other probing, personal data that I don't think the government needs or has a right to know. My privacy is important to me.
To make matters even more insulting, this stern warning is included:
YOUR RESPONSE IS REQUIRED BY LAW
And the FAQ that came with it threatens a fine if I don't comply.
No way am I divulging this kind of information to the government, and if they want to fine me, they're gonna have to come and get me, something I don't think is very likely from the Census Bureau. I shred the thing and then throw it in the recycling bag (along with all the other junk mail).
A week or so after this attempted invasion of my privacy, I start getting calls from the Census Bureau, which I generously allow to go straight into voicemail. These calls become more frequent, and they start coming at all times of the day, from 8:00 am to 8:30 pm and all points in between. It's obvious that they're going to be persistent and bug the living hell out of me.
Finally, in a gallant attempt to stop this government harrassment, I answer one of the calls and the following parphrased conversation takes place:
ACORN Worker: "Is this [my name] who lives at [my address] in Mobile, Alabama?"
Resolute GulfCoastTider: "Yes, it is."
AW: "You were recently mailed the American Community Survey and we have not received your responses yet."
GCT: "I've decided not to participate."
AW: "YOUR RESPONSE IS REQUIRED BY LAW under Section blah-blah-blah of Title whatever of the US Code."
GCT: "I'm sorry, but I don't have time to fill that out, and the questions are an invasion of my privacy. So I've decided not to participate."
AW: "Are you aware that there are penalties and fines associated with your refusal to provide your answers?"
GCT: "Fine me."
AW: "What did you say?"
GCT: "I said, 'fine me.' I'm not participating in this and I've already thrown it in the garbage."
AW: "Thank you for your time sir." click.
I'm thinking "problem solved." But not so fast, my friend. The very next day, I get a call from a 205 area code number [that's Birmingham, for those of you not blessed enough to live in Alabama], but with "no name" in the Caller ID. I answer and the following paraphrased conversation takes place:
Surly ACORN Supervisor: "Mr. GCT?"
GCT: "Yes."
SAS: "Yesterday, you told a member of my staff that you were refusing to participate in the American Community Survey. This call is to remind you that YOUR RESPONSE IS REQUIRED BY LAW under Section blah-blah-blah of Title whatever of the US Code and you will be subject to a fine if you don't participate."
I distinctly hear giggling in the background, as if someone is standing in SAS' cubicle and listening to SAS give that uppity citizen the what-for.
GCT: "I'm not paying any fines, and I shredded the form and threw it in the trash. If you send another one, I'm having it returned to sender."
SAS: "Mr. GCT, you need to stop being uncooperative and provide your answers, for your own good."
GCT: [clenches teeth like Clint Eastwood] "Now, you listen here. You will get the answers to your little survey when you pry them from my cold, dead fingers. I am not participating and I am not paying you one red cent."
I know that's an adaptation of a Heston quote in a speech before an NRA convention, but Eastwood's clenched teeth growl sounds more convincing. It works, too. After a moment of stunned silence, there's a mumbling voice in the background and then SAS goes Aunt Esther on me, raising her voice:
SAS: "Mr. GCT, you are going to violate federal law!!! If you do not comply then I will have no choice but to send someone to your home to collect this survey!!!" There's a "BAM" noise in the background, like a desk-slap.
She goes on for a few more seconds about Section blah-blah-blah of Title whatever of the US Code before I interrupt.
GCT: [still Eastwood clenching] "If I get one more call from you or anyone else from the Census Bureau, I am reporting you for harrassing communications under Section blah-blah-blah of Title whatever of the US Code. And if anyone shows up at my house, I am having them arrested for trespassing and harassment. You will leave me alone, and you will leave my family alone. Have a nice day."
click.
A few days later, there's a knock at my door. You guessed it--a Census rep. This was a largish, middle-aged nice looking lady, who I politely informed that I was not participating and that I had better not see or hear from the Census Bureau, ever again, or I was filing charges of harassment. I didn't have the heart to call the law on this nice lady--she looked surprised and more than a little embarrassed, as if no one had told her about my resolve.
The next guy that showed up, though--he got it. He showed up at nearly 8:00 pm, on a Saturday night, with an official looking ID badge and a very stern look on his face. He started to introduce himself and as he spoke, I pulled out my cell and dialed 911.
911 Operator: "911, what is your emergency?"
GCT: I want to report trespassing and harassment, and the perpetrator is on site now.
911 Operator: What is your address?"
[I give my address]
Stern Male ACORN Dude: "What are you doing, sir?"
GCT: Reporting you for trespassing and harassing communications. You stay right where you are, the police are on their way.
Mr. Stern Male ACORN Dude turns around and quickly walks down to his car. He gets in, closes the door, starts the engine, puts the car in gear and pulls forward, just in time for Johnny Law to round the corner and put his lights on.
To make a really long post a little shorter, Mr. Stern Male ACORN Dude did not get himself formally detained that night. But he did get to spend a few minutes in the backseat of a police cruiser. As he was being released, the officer told him that he'd better not see him bothering "these nice people any more, or you're going to my jail."
I haven't seen hide nor hair of ACORN since, but something tells me that the story is not over, yet.
For the record, I dutifully completed the regular survey form that only asks for names, ages and ethnic origins and sent it back on April 1, 2010. I have no problem with the government asking questions on a voluntary survey. However, as a private citizen, it is my right to refuse to divulge information I consider private. It is your right as well. The American Community Survey is an obnoxious invasion of privacy. It was designed to replaced the Census Bureau's Long Form, which asks questions in more detail but goes nowhere near the invasiveness of this thing.
Ok, you can't stop me. But please read the whole post. I'm still pissed.
So, about six weeks ago, I get this 679,812 page survey, innocuously called the "American Community Survey," from the US Census Bureau. I opened it up and started looking at it, and I could not believe the invasiveness of this thing. Not only do they want to know how many people live here, they want to know their ages, races, marital status, physical problems (like the ability to walk or climb stairs and leave the house alone) and all kinds of other probing, personal data that I don't think the government needs or has a right to know. My privacy is important to me.
To make matters even more insulting, this stern warning is included:
YOUR RESPONSE IS REQUIRED BY LAW
And the FAQ that came with it threatens a fine if I don't comply.
No way am I divulging this kind of information to the government, and if they want to fine me, they're gonna have to come and get me, something I don't think is very likely from the Census Bureau. I shred the thing and then throw it in the recycling bag (along with all the other junk mail).
A week or so after this attempted invasion of my privacy, I start getting calls from the Census Bureau, which I generously allow to go straight into voicemail. These calls become more frequent, and they start coming at all times of the day, from 8:00 am to 8:30 pm and all points in between. It's obvious that they're going to be persistent and bug the living hell out of me.
Finally, in a gallant attempt to stop this government harrassment, I answer one of the calls and the following parphrased conversation takes place:
ACORN Worker: "Is this [my name] who lives at [my address] in Mobile, Alabama?"
Resolute GulfCoastTider: "Yes, it is."
AW: "You were recently mailed the American Community Survey and we have not received your responses yet."
GCT: "I've decided not to participate."
AW: "YOUR RESPONSE IS REQUIRED BY LAW under Section blah-blah-blah of Title whatever of the US Code."
GCT: "I'm sorry, but I don't have time to fill that out, and the questions are an invasion of my privacy. So I've decided not to participate."
AW: "Are you aware that there are penalties and fines associated with your refusal to provide your answers?"
GCT: "Fine me."
AW: "What did you say?"
GCT: "I said, 'fine me.' I'm not participating in this and I've already thrown it in the garbage."
AW: "Thank you for your time sir." click.
I'm thinking "problem solved." But not so fast, my friend. The very next day, I get a call from a 205 area code number [that's Birmingham, for those of you not blessed enough to live in Alabama], but with "no name" in the Caller ID. I answer and the following paraphrased conversation takes place:
Surly ACORN Supervisor: "Mr. GCT?"
GCT: "Yes."
SAS: "Yesterday, you told a member of my staff that you were refusing to participate in the American Community Survey. This call is to remind you that YOUR RESPONSE IS REQUIRED BY LAW under Section blah-blah-blah of Title whatever of the US Code and you will be subject to a fine if you don't participate."
I distinctly hear giggling in the background, as if someone is standing in SAS' cubicle and listening to SAS give that uppity citizen the what-for.
GCT: "I'm not paying any fines, and I shredded the form and threw it in the trash. If you send another one, I'm having it returned to sender."
SAS: "Mr. GCT, you need to stop being uncooperative and provide your answers, for your own good."
GCT: [clenches teeth like Clint Eastwood] "Now, you listen here. You will get the answers to your little survey when you pry them from my cold, dead fingers. I am not participating and I am not paying you one red cent."
I know that's an adaptation of a Heston quote in a speech before an NRA convention, but Eastwood's clenched teeth growl sounds more convincing. It works, too. After a moment of stunned silence, there's a mumbling voice in the background and then SAS goes Aunt Esther on me, raising her voice:
SAS: "Mr. GCT, you are going to violate federal law!!! If you do not comply then I will have no choice but to send someone to your home to collect this survey!!!" There's a "BAM" noise in the background, like a desk-slap.
She goes on for a few more seconds about Section blah-blah-blah of Title whatever of the US Code before I interrupt.
GCT: [still Eastwood clenching] "If I get one more call from you or anyone else from the Census Bureau, I am reporting you for harrassing communications under Section blah-blah-blah of Title whatever of the US Code. And if anyone shows up at my house, I am having them arrested for trespassing and harassment. You will leave me alone, and you will leave my family alone. Have a nice day."
click.
A few days later, there's a knock at my door. You guessed it--a Census rep. This was a largish, middle-aged nice looking lady, who I politely informed that I was not participating and that I had better not see or hear from the Census Bureau, ever again, or I was filing charges of harassment. I didn't have the heart to call the law on this nice lady--she looked surprised and more than a little embarrassed, as if no one had told her about my resolve.
The next guy that showed up, though--he got it. He showed up at nearly 8:00 pm, on a Saturday night, with an official looking ID badge and a very stern look on his face. He started to introduce himself and as he spoke, I pulled out my cell and dialed 911.
911 Operator: "911, what is your emergency?"
GCT: I want to report trespassing and harassment, and the perpetrator is on site now.
911 Operator: What is your address?"
[I give my address]
Stern Male ACORN Dude: "What are you doing, sir?"
GCT: Reporting you for trespassing and harassing communications. You stay right where you are, the police are on their way.
Mr. Stern Male ACORN Dude turns around and quickly walks down to his car. He gets in, closes the door, starts the engine, puts the car in gear and pulls forward, just in time for Johnny Law to round the corner and put his lights on.
To make a really long post a little shorter, Mr. Stern Male ACORN Dude did not get himself formally detained that night. But he did get to spend a few minutes in the backseat of a police cruiser. As he was being released, the officer told him that he'd better not see him bothering "these nice people any more, or you're going to my jail."
I haven't seen hide nor hair of ACORN since, but something tells me that the story is not over, yet.
For the record, I dutifully completed the regular survey form that only asks for names, ages and ethnic origins and sent it back on April 1, 2010. I have no problem with the government asking questions on a voluntary survey. However, as a private citizen, it is my right to refuse to divulge information I consider private. It is your right as well. The American Community Survey is an obnoxious invasion of privacy. It was designed to replaced the Census Bureau's Long Form, which asks questions in more detail but goes nowhere near the invasiveness of this thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)
