You may recall that back in June, Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-You Serious?, declared that the census was part of the vast left-wing conspiracy to install Barack Hussein Super-Allah Muslim Muslim Muslim Obama as dictator-for-life of the American Soviet. At the time, she said of the census, If we look at American history, between 1942 and 1947, the data that was collected by the Census Bureau was handed over to the FBI and other organizations at the request of President Roosevelt, and that’s how the Japanese were rounded up and put into the internment camps.”
One can draw a bright, straight line between rhetoric like that and this horrific crime:
The FBI is investigating the hanging death of a U.S. Census worker near a Kentucky cemetery. A law enforcement official says the word “fed” was scrawled on his chest.
The body of Bill Sparkman, a 51-year-old Census field worker and occasional teacher, was found Sept. 12 in the Daniel Boone National Forest in rural southeast Kentucky.
Investigators have said little about the case. A law enforcement official, who was not authorized to discuss the case and requested anonymity, tells The Associated Press the word “fed” was written on the dead man’s chest.
Let’s not kid ourselves. Let’s not muse that this might have been a “lone nut” somewhere. This was a calculated act of political violence, one that was encouraged and supported by Michele Marie Bachmann. By raising the specter of internment, of government-sanctioned attacks on the American people, Bachmann gave those “nuts” a real reason to fear the government.
If the government was seriously thinking about interning Americans simply for their political views — even if those views are directly opposite mine — I’d be first on the line to prevent it. And yes, I’d prefer to resist it though peaceful resistance if possible, but I would view violence as acceptable in defense of liberty.
Of course, the government isn’t thinking about interning Americans, for any reason whatsoever. There is no evidence, credible or otherwise, that even hints that they could be. The most oppressive thing Barack Obama is planning to do is provide health care to people who don’t have it. As for the census, it’s going to happen in 2010, just like it’s happened every ten years since the founding of the Republic, because the Constitution says so, not because Barack Obama has suddenly and capriciously demanded that all people come to Bethlehem to be taxed.
By taking a legitimate and non-controversial function of government — having some idea of how many people we have in the country — and by turning it into a secret neo-Marxist plot, Bachmann has posited a world in which even census workers are stormtroopers of destruction. Were she a private citizen, we might ignore her. But she isn’t. She’s a member of Congress, an elected official. If she’s saying that this is true, is it any wonder that someone out there would believe it?
Bachmann has a responsibility to her constituents and her country to conduct herself in a responsible manner. That she has chosen not to is to her everlasting shame. This death is, at least in part, on her head. And she owes her constituents, her country, and most important, the family of Bill Sparkman an apology. But I won’t hold my breath.
So does this mean that leftists who spew anti-law enforcement rhetoric should apologize to the families of police officers killed in the line of duty?
@Andrew — if you can name a sitting Dem Rep who’s suggested the police are out to intern Americans, I’ll happily condemn them.
As soon as I saw this story on Rachel Maddow, and got over my several minute horrified silence, I started sputtering about Bachmann.
This has whiffs of Mississippi Burning. Time to tone down the anti-government rhetoric, people.
Oh, and Andrew, if your first instinct at such a horrifying crime is to be an apologist distracting liar, I feel sorry for you. Left wingers want to shoot cops? Government paid cops! Paid by taxes? (Booga booga!)
What? Next time try “Hey! Look! Elvis!” and it’ll make just about as much sense.
Why the sitting rep and internment criteria? seems unnecessarily specific… ie designed to protect democrats who’ve engaged in inflammatory rhetoric or far fetched conspiracy theories that arguably enable political violence.
look at it this way, with criteria like that you just exonerated the likes of say glen beck or bill o’reilly from charges of moral culpability.
But you see she won’t apologize, nor will she take any responsibility because in the world of the wingnuts no one is organized but the secular humanists remember?
As vile as they (and their supporters) are, the topic of the post was “Things Michele Bachmann Should Apologize For, but Won’t,” and comparing her power and influence to the power and influence of some random leftist columnist or agitator is hardly reasonable. Let’s compare apples and apples.
Of course, this is the rhetorical trick that the right wants us to fall for, claiming in wide-eyed innocence that it’s all equivalent, everyone does the same thing, and thus they’re under no moral obligation to stop.
People who say that either 1) Are stupid or 2) believe that the people they are addressing are stupid. There is no third option.
—Myca
And this makes her different from any other practitioner of incendiary rhetoric or conspiracy theorizing? Of the top of my head, the only person i can think of who apologized for thier own rhetoric fueling an atmosphere of violence is Louis Farakhan…for the assassination of Malcolm X.
Why the sitting rep and internment criteria?
Because that’s who I’m talking about. I’ve no doubt that an anonymous commenter on DailyKos has said something tremendously stupid and contemptible about killing cops; obviously, any decent person condemns that.
But Michele Bachmann isn’t a random commenter or an intemperate blogger or even a prominent activist. She’s a member of the government. If you can’t see the difference between those things, and why Bachmann’s conduct is particularly risible, I don’t know how I can help you.
Manju,
Has it occurred to you that most people elected to the federal government feel an obligation not to fuel an atmosphere of violence? That they feel an obligation to keep the peace literally even when they are distressed by what they believe others may do in the future?
I don’t know why the difference between random citizenry — even random citizenry that leads an organization, has a TV show or stages a protest — and members of the federal government is so opaque here.
No, wait, I do, and Myca’s already said it.
Also, how hilarious is it that the right is citing the Japanese internment — which Michelle Malkin cheerily defends as a perfectly good idea, which no one lifted a finger, much less a firearm, to prevent — as their historical precedent of what those scary leftists could do? Of course, due to the need to disappear the existence of racism, the internment gets vaguely transmuted into a political disagreement rather than the wholesale loss of liberty for a group based solely on their ethnicity.
Myca: your arguing by motive (“rhetorical trick that the right wants us to fall…” in order to justify continuation of rhetoric) which is a logical fallacy and, since it needs no proof, a cornerstone of conspiracy thinking, ironically. Your hyperbole (stupid) is unhelpful and also ironic, given we are discussing the dangers of heated rhetoric. the rest of your characterization of my argument (“it’s all equivalent, everyone does the same thing”) is strawmanish, but that’s the least of its problems.
anyway, if you want a clearer view of my motives, allow me to refer you to me taking on the right wing on a related subject (the racism within the conservative movement). check me out, i got some good quips in and i’m, my usual brilliant and witty self :-). i think you’ll agree, i cleaned their clocks.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/backlash-the-race-baiters-get-carded/#comments
this is denial. incendiary rhetoric and conspiracy theories goes far beyond anonymous commentators. you just don’t cover it here.
well, then take it up with bill Clinton, who after OK city warned of heated rhetoric coming from talk radio. also refer to nancy pelosi and Chris Mathews who worry about a possible assassin of our president being triggered by hate talk coming from non-government sources. i’m sure your familiar with dave neiwert, who doesn’t restrict his concern to government officials.
Fine. Lets say they have an addition obligation. I’m sure you’ll join me a condemnation of Van Jones and the people who defend him, for his fellowtravelling with Maoism and 911denailism, which enables islamic terrorism and fuels antisemitism.
Rep Jim McDermott fits the bill when he speculated that President Bush timed the capture of Saddam Hussein for political gain. even al jazeera reported: “Arabs are not alone in believing U.S. conspiracy theories … ”
robert kennedy jr peddled diebold bush stole the 2004 election theories, similar to the dangerous Obama as illegitimate prez rhetoric (though without the racism). and yes, there were threats on bush’s life.
rep cynthia McKinney said bush may have been aware of 911 attacks and allowed them to happen.
Associating this death with the left wing is poor logic. It sounds to me like he was mistaken for a undercover federal narc or member of the ATF.
Manju, I see a really strong desire on your part to shout “Look! Other things! Other people! Not this! Pay no attention to this! Please!”
For my part, I said that Jones’ flirtation with trutherism was enough for him to lose my support; that said, I’ve read nothing to suggest that Jones ever argued that the Bush administration was working with conservative groups to create a climate where liberals could be sent to internment camps. Indeed, that you go to Jones as your example — a low-level Obama staffer who was fired for his comments — suggests that this pattern is not so strong on the left as on the right. You cited Niewert; I agree, Dave’s a great writer. You should try reading him sometime.
I like the demonstration of, “But they did it too.” As long as the right can point out some action that somebody did on the left that is vaguely equivalent, that makes what the rightwinger did acceptable.
I notice, too, that Manju offers no condemnation of Bachmann whatsoever. Why am I not surprised?
Also, how hilarious is it that the right is citing the Japanese internment — which Michelle Malkin cheerily defends as a perfectly good idea, which no one lifted a finger, much less a firearm, to prevent — as their historical precedent of what those scary leftists could do?
Actually there were people who tried to stop the internments. J. Edgar Hoover in particular vehemently opposed them.
Just offhand, what’s wrong with citing the internment as precedent? It was a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President, and it happened.
Also, while the murder of the census worker is a horrible event and the perpetrator(s) should be caught and punished severely, it is also true that the Census WAS used for the internment. Rep. Bachmann was intemperate in her language but correct (for once) on her facts.
Robert, didn’t the parties flip-flop around the time of JFK, not before internment?
Serious question, I know they switched but I don’t remember when.
1) The fact that the only audible critiques of the federal govt. are coming from right-wing racist nutjobs like Bachmann only speaks to the pathetic “Daddy’s a Democrat now, so it’s all ok” quietism of America’s supposed liberals.
2) The US census has NEVER been noncontroversial.
3) It must be awesome to be able to walk around believing that the very notion of internment is inconceivable to a Democratic federal government. Some of us ain’t so lucky.
This was a calculated act of political violence, one that was encouraged and supported by Michele Marie Bachmann. By raising the specter of internment, of government-sanctioned attacks on the American people, Bachmann gave those “nuts” a real reason to fear the government.
So you’re saying that by spouting an assertion of governmental conspiracy – one that Robert says is not simply an assertion but is grounded in fact – Rep. Bachmann is responsible for the murder of a government official by some nut?
No. First, to my knowledge, nobody’s caught and talked to the murder to see just what their motivation was or if they’ve even heard of Rep. Bachmann.
Second, Rep. Bachmann never called for the slaughter of Census workers. I clicked through on the links provided above. What Rep. Bachmann actually said was that she greatly mistrusted what the government might do with the information that it was asking for in the Census, and gave an example (that no one so far has refuted as false) of how it had been done in the past. She also said that she mistrusted one group that had been proposed to be involved – ACORN – and feared that they might get their hands on the data and misuse it.
Now, you might think she’s being paranoid. But she’s apparently right that it’s been done before in the memory of people alive today. In fact, I think it’s been done TO people who are still alive today. So it’s not that far-fetched that the information might be misused by the government. And the agency she talked about is currently in court trying to defend itself against government charges that it has performed just the kind of act that she suggests they’d try to use Census information to facilitate. Whether ACORN would actually be able to get its hands on the information in question based on what their projected role would have been in the Census effort is not clear to me. So that may be dubious, but its not crazy.
In any case – I’ll be answering any question the Census Bureau asks. But misuse of the information so gathered by the government seems to be a legitimate concern. After all, quite large sums of money are being spent on securing the data in such a fashion that no one either inside or outside of government can get at the data and misuse it. So someone else is concerned enough about this to spend your tax dollars trying to prevent it, which means her concerns are shared by some serious people, even if they don’t think that it’s a conspiracy that reaches the White House.
I do not share Rep. Bachmann’s viewpoint that White House staff might be planning to misuse Census data. But expressing that concern and encouraging people not to cooperate with them past their enumeration function doesn’t come anywhere close to “creating an atmosphere of violence” or inciting murder. She cannot be held responsible or accountable for someone deciding to kill a Census worker, especially when we have no idea what was really going on there.
Side question:
Yes, the law states that you have to answer all questions the Census puts to you. But all I see in the Constitution regarding this is that it calls for the government to enumerate the number of people in each State for the purpose of allocating House seats. Has there ever been a challenge to the Constitutionality of either a) asking for other information or b) assessing criminal penalties for not answering such questions?
Oh, and that “Citypages” link cited about her remarks has her as (R-Okinawa). I was unaware that Okinawa rates a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives. Do they check the rest of their facts that well?
I’ll sum it up about the internment concerns:
The problem was not that the census was taken in 1940.
The problem was that people were being persecuted for their ethnicity.
To criticizing the census takers/administrators is to blame the wrong people.
Hence, Bachmann is in the wrong (as usual).
Robert @16,
Hoover didn’t like the Japanese internment because he felt it implied a criticism of his efforts immediately after Pearl Harbor to round up those who might actually have been spies for the Japanese. So yes, he didn’t think the internment was necessary, but he didn’t do much about it, and what he did was in order to defend his turf, not out of concern for the Japanese-Americans. He certainly had no problem with making assumptions of disloyalty based on race, as he showed in his opposition to letting Jews persecuted by the Nazis and Soviets emigrate to the U.S. in the late 1930s and early 1940s — he was convinced Eastern European Jews must all be communists.
RonF,
There’s a slight difference between a historical race-based internment made possible by a Census that asks people to state their race, and a hypothetical politics-based internment that could not be enabled by the Census inasmuch as the Census does not ask questions like “Did you vote for Obama?” nor “Should there be a public option for health insurance?”
I don’t know of a court case challenging the Census’s right to ask a question, but Public Law 94-521 prohibits the Census from asking a question on religious affiliation on a mandatory basis.
Saladin @18,
1) False.
2) What were the controversies involved in Jefferson’s administration of the 1790 census?
3) Strawman. No one has said it’s inconceivable.
For that matter, what were the controversial aspects of the census in 2000 and 1990? I don’t remember hearing much about the evil the federal gov. was planning to do with it.
Jake,
The controversial aspect in 2000 was the use of statistical sampling (aka “post enumeration survey”), not to determine Congressional representation (as that would violate the Constitution), but simply to get some handle on the number of homeless and/or illegally present people in various places. The failure to count these kinds of people in prior Censuses had led to undercounting by about 8 million people. There also was the problem of counting Mormon missionaries who weren’t currently resident in Utah.
PG:
1) A nice handful of articles. But the fundamental assumptions of the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Reagan years — America as the ‘leader of the free world,’ Just War bullshit (tho shifted to Afghanistan), the idea that engagement with an essentially white supremacist Security Council represents ‘diplomacy,’ the awesomeness of taking peoples’ tax dollars and giving them to the pentagon and corporations, the denial of gay folks’ equal civil rights, endorsement of the prison industrial complex, etc. etc. — are still in effect in the Obama admin, and the Democratic party in general. And the majority of American ‘liberals’ who were fuming at W are still too locked into the ‘lesser of two evils’ mode to have shit to say about this.
2) Fine, change my second point to ‘the census has been controversial for decades.’ For reasons that you yourself point out, and for questions of racial and ethnic categorization, among others.
3) The OP said “Of course, the government isn’t thinking about interning Americans, for any reason whatsoever. There is no evidence, credible or otherwise, that even hints that they could be.” That’s pretty darned close to deeming such a thing inconceivable. And my point is that it ain’t anywhere near inconceivable to to an Arab or Muslim man — even one born and raised in this country.
That’s what I thought, PG. I remember in 1990 many people in NYC were worried about under counting the homeless.
I hardly think that’s the same thing as this year’s manufactured controversy, nor did the statements from those concerned about the census process in either 1990 or 2000 rise to the level of paranoia and fear of evildoing to the happy, white, middle calss that we have seen this year.
Its not that strawmanish, PG. I think most here find Bachaman’s theory far fetched, even though there is an actual historical precedent of democrats using internment. If it weren’t implausible it wouldn’t be a conspiracy theory, it wouldn’t be incendiary and “raising its spectre” would be judicious as opposed to giving ““nuts” a real reason to fear the government.”
While I enjoyed Saladin’s turnaround privilege argument, i don’t think its privilege that allows people here to dismiss the possibility of another internment. Dems certainly created Jim Crow and used the KKK to terrorize blacks and Republicans, but I don’t really worry about them doing it again.
While history and oppression must never be forgotten, conservatives have a point when they tell liberals they’re stuck in the past. Its time to move on. Its not appropriate or plausible to raise internment scenarios at this time even with historical precedent. Get over it.
What? I have no idea what this paragraph means. Can you clarify what it is that you’re trying to say?
@ Manju
“Get over it.”
Tell you what: When going to the airport doesn’t mean me getting ‘randomly selected’ for screening and ‘randomly’ interrogated for two hours about whether I’ve had firearms or explosives training, and my Brooklyn-born father doesn’t get ‘randomly’ strip-searched there, and when American culture doesn’t endorse 1001 shitty movies and TV shows that feature people with names like mine getting blown to bits, and when American debate shifts away from ‘how do we combat the evil Muslim Fundamentalist Menace ™, through starvation-inducing sanctions or through bombs?’ to ‘IS THERE REALLY such a menace that needs combating?’, *then* I’ll ‘get over it.’
Let me clarify by example. While we all must be cognizant of tuskegee, blaming the government for “inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color” as rev wright did, is wrong, dangerous, an infantilizing form of racism, incendiary, pollutes race relations (perhaps intentionally), is paranoid, and can lead to a climate that nutjobs use to justify political violence… like the New Black Panthers who tried to police polling booths in Philadelphia.
While I’m probably annoying you by singling out a black preacher, let me concede that–while I don’t buy power definitions of racism hook line and sinker–liberals have a point when they take into consideration power relations. Therefore, Bachman’s rhetoric, because of the context of dangerous paranoid white supremacist militias of which she is surely aware, is even more dangerous than Wrights.
Saladin: You do yourself no favors by wishing the debate shifts toward denial of a particular oppression while simultaneusly demanding a long shelf life for another form of oppression.
get over it for thee but not for me, appears to be your stand.
That’s pretty darned close to deeming such a thing inconceivable. And my point is that it ain’t anywhere near inconceivable to to an Arab or Muslim man — even one born and raised in this country.
Saladin, if Michele Bachmann were arguing that the census could be used to intern Muslims or other minority populations, I’d say you had a valid point. But that’s not Bachmann’s argument — quite the opposite. Indeed, Michele Bachmann would be, I suspect, neutral/positive on Muslim internment.
No, her argument is that Democrats could use the census to imprison political enemies — specifically white, Christian Republicans. And there’s not one whit of evidence that could happen.
Bachmann is arguing specifically from fears of an African-American, “Muslim,” non-White president, playing on the anxieties of the right with essentially the argument that We did it to Them, so now that They are in charge, They could do it to Us. That’s the fire Bachmann is playing with, and why it must be condemned vociferously.
@Manju: No, my stand is that, as the world wrangles with everything that’s wrong with the scummy Taliban, or scummy Ahmadenijad, or scummy Qaddafi, or [insert western demon of the week here], my fellow Americans (whose bombs, blockades, and economic policies have ruined or stolen the lives of MILLIONS of Arab and Muslim WOMEN) are the last group I want to hear dominating the conversation, or dictating its terms.
@Jeff: fair enough, but then the question becomes ‘from what position is one expressing that voiciferous condemnation?’ The neoliberal version of the federal government of the US (ie the Dems) has a very sinister history and is currently doing all sorts of sinister things to all sorts of people — the fact that *other* sinister forces (ie the neocons/Repubs) are attacking it does not make it my friend.
Saladin,
white supremacist Security Council
Chinese people are white/ believe white people superior to non-whites? Who knew?
And the majority of American ‘liberals’ who were fuming at W are still too locked into the ‘lesser of two evils’ mode to have shit to say about this.
Really? You’ve surveyed a representative sample of those who were fuming against Bush and have found that a majority have nothing to say about those of Bush’s policies that Obama has continued? Certainly those I’ve seen online have all had plenty to say about their various disappointments in Obama. Several blogs on gay rights have vowed and encouraged others to vow not to give any money to any Democratic candidates until certain goals are met.
Fine, change my second point to ‘the census has been controversial for decades.’ For reasons that you yourself point out, and for questions of racial and ethnic categorization, among others.
So far as I know, significant controversies regarding the Census first arose in 1970. As Jake notes, none of these prior controversies had to do with concerns that the information would be used in order to imprison political opponents of the president. I suppose the fact that we’ve never had people, so ignorant as to believe that political questions are asked on the Census, in a position to raise the issue does provide counter-evidence to Amp’s post about how we’re not really getting stupider.
That’s pretty darned close to deeming such a thing inconceivable.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
The OP says there is no evidence that the government wants to intern Americans. There is a huge difference between “there is no evidence” and “it is inconceivable.” There is no evidence that my boss is planning to fire me — he’s friendly, I’ve received no negative performance reviews, no one else has been fired recently in our office — but I’d be very stupid in this economy to find it “inconceivable” that I could get fired.
Manju,
I think most here find Bachaman’s theory far fetched, even though there is an actual historical precedent of democrats using internment.
I’m going to say this one last time and then give up. The Census was useful for interning Japanese people because the Census has a question about race/ ethnicity. The Census is bloody useless for interning Republicans because the Census has no questions about political identification. If conservatives are afraid of being identifiable by the federal government, what they ought to do is get rid of the FEC’s records of who donated to which candidate — except, of course, in the last election conservatives were saying that the FEC ought to keep better records on political donations than it does.
How do you, since you’re defending Bachmann’s theory as not “far-fetched” on the grounds that a Democratic Congress and Administration used internment in the past, believe that the Census data would assist in the type of internment Bachmann is talking about?
@ PG —
this is probably a waste of time, since you clearly can’t make your points without mangling what others have said, buuut…
I said (and of course you neglected to cut and paste this) ESSENTIALY white supremacist. France, Russia, the US, the UK and….yes, China. 4/5ths of the only UN body with any semblance of power are majority-white nations while the vast majority of the world’s people aren’t white. To pretend that this isn’t due to white supremacy is just silly.
Did Bachman say the census would be used to help intern republicans?
Can you pull the quote where I did that?
To pretend that this isn’t due to white supremacy is just silly.
So a majority of white people are white supremacists? If a country that is majority white is on the Security Council, it must be representing white supremacist ideas?
The fact that 4/5 of the Security Council is predominately white countries is certainly an artifact of white supremacy (though probably not in a way that you understand given your obsession with population; if you look at population at the time of the UN’s founding in 1945, when the largest chunks of Empire were still intact, Britain could claim to represent as many people as China — it’s the imperialism that was white supremacist).
But you assume that if something arose from Ideology X, it must continue to embody Ideology X. Women’s colleges arose from sexism, particularly the idea that women were incapable of being educated at the same level as men. Does that mean that women’s colleges today must also embody sexism?
Manju,
“Did Bachman say the census would be used to help intern republicans?”
Then who does she think the Census would help to intern? What was the point of bringing up the Japanese internment if she’s not worried about someone getting interned, and what was the point of decrying ACORN’s political affiliations unless she’s worried about how those political affiliations would work to her disadvantage? (Since her big statement was “I know for my family, the only question we will be answering is how many people are in our home. We won’t be answering any information beyond that, because the Constitution doesn’t require any information beyond that.”)
Can you pull the quote where I did that?
What was the point of your statement, “I think most here find Bachaman’s theory far fetched, even though there is an actual historical precedent of democrats using internment” unless you were trying to differentiate yourself from that “most here” because of your superior consciousness of the “actual historical precedent”? Are you among the most, or do you proudly stand apart and find Bachmann’s theory not to be far fetched?
bachman really doesn’t know how to take care of business. thats why they kicked her out of BTO
By failing to to provide a quote I take that as a begrudged concession that she didn’t actually say what you say she said. Maybe she implied it is your point? i don’t know i’m not in the mood to deconstruct. i’m agnostic on the issue but given how you like to address arguments in their weakest construction, forgive me if i don’t take your word for it.
The point my statement makes is that even the existence of historical precedent doesn’t exonerate a theory from far-fetchedness. As I mentioned, even though Dems created Jim Crow and used the KKK to terrorize blacks and Republicans, I don’t worry about them doing it again. So its time to move on.
By failing to to provide a quote I take that as a begrudged concession that she didn’t actually say what you say she said.
If we’re playing that game, where did I say she had said it?
It’s tough, because there’s a feedback loop between right wing nuts and Republican politicians like Bachmann. I seriously doubt she’s the source of this conspiracy theory. I did some quick research, and found that the belief that ACORN, with help from the Census, is a brownshirt organization intent on depriving right wingers of their liberty (and life?) under the guidance of Obama was all over the place.
Bachmann was doing that thing wingnuts with some prestige and authority do, which is to call out to a right wing conspiracy theory while pretending to deny it on its surface, which gives the TV producers “permission” to keep her on while validating to the base that Important People agree with them.
The conspiracy theory exists without her, but approval from high places like that is a powerful motivator for violent types.
In response to my statement; “I think most here find Bachaman’s theory far fetched even though there is an actual historical precedent of democrats using internment.” you replied that “The Census is bloody useless for interning Republicans,” and went on to say “How do you, since you’re defending Bachmann’s theory as not “far-fetched” on the grounds that a Democratic Congress and Administration used internment in the past, believe that the Census data would assist in the type of internment Bachmann is talking about?
The “type of internment” you characterize Bachmann as “talking about” is “interning Republicans,” as is made even more clearer when I ask “Did Bachman say the census would be used to help intern republicans?” and you reply
“Then who does she think the Census would help to intern?” which clearly stipulates you thought she in fact meant the people who would be interned would be republicans.
you thought she in fact meant the people who would be interned would be republicans.
Agreed that I thought that’s what she meant, because that seems to be the only logical conclusion for the set of statements she made (ACORN politically biased; ACORN therefore dangerous to have conducing Census; Census used for internment; Bachmann’s family staying safe by not giving more information than number of persons in household), but I’ll concede that looking for a logical conclusion for Michele Bachmann’s stream of consciousness was a mistake on my part.
But I still didn’t say that she’d said “the census would be used to help intern republicans,” which was what you claimed I’d said. And as usual in my (or so far as I can tell, anyone on this website’s) discussions with you, this back-and-forth has become circular and useless.
I believe the theory can first be found in the Turner Overdrive Diaries.
PG:
The controversial aspect in 2000 was the use of statistical sampling (aka “post enumeration survey”), not to determine Congressional representation (as that would violate the Constitution),
What I’ve seen expressed is a concern that the current Administration wanted to use a sampling technique in the 2010 census in order to in fact apportion Congressional representation. You state that such would violate the Constitution. I agree, but has there been legislation banning this or court opinions supporting that it is unconstitutional?
What I’ve seen expressed is a concern that the current Administration wanted to use a sampling technique in the 2010 census in order to in fact apportion Congressional representation. You state that such would violate the Constitution. I agree, but has there been legislation banning this or court opinions supporting that it is unconstitutional?
And this concern is based on… what? Has the current Administration said it plans to do so? As I recall, the guy who is heading the Census specifically stated at his Senate confirmation that he would NOT try to use statistical sampling for such a purpose.
In Department of Commerce v. United States House of Representatives (1999), the Supreme Court found that the Census Act (a federal statute) “prohibits the proposed uses of statistical sampling in calculating the population for purposes of apportionment. Because we so conclude, we find it unnecessary to reach the constitutional question presented.”
Has the current Administration said it plans to do so? As I recall, the guy who is heading the Census specifically stated at his Senate confirmation that he would NOT try to use statistical sampling for such a purpose.
Politicians and political officials quite often say one thing and then, once in office, do another. I seem to recall that the current occupant of the White House is being accused of this right now by numerous people on the left. So I’d rather trust in what the law says than what the person trying to get Senate confirmation says.
Thanks for the cite!
Shouldn’t this post be updated to acknowledge the fact that you got it completely wrong?
Ok, maybe this posting is a bit out-of-date. But no more so than the suggestion that Brandon Berg still has some connection to The Distributed Republic website.
Welcome back, guy. Where you been?
Nowhere.really. Was busy at work for a while, and then realized I was kind of burnt out on the whole blogging thing anyway. I didn’t really plan to disappear for a year, but the weeks piled up, and here we are.
Maybe it’s time to come back to DR. I’m happy to see that you finally accepted my invitation, so I guess I’ll see you over there. I don’t think I’ll be returning as a regular commenter here, though, largely because of stuff like this. The hostility to dissent and overzealous use of the ban button on the part of a couple of the moderators create a chilling effect that I’d rather not have to deal with.
Well, there’s “a bit out of date” and there’s being completely wrong about assigning responsibility for someone’s death to someone whose politics you disfavor. It seems to me that some kind of mea culpa for leaping to a completely unjustified conclusion is in order here. Jeff doesn’t have to believe that Michelle Bachman is right about what she says to apologize for being wrong about what he said.
Hey, here’s something else Michele Bachmann and the Tea Party people should apologize for, but won’t:
Shootout suspect was mad at left-wing politics
I live in a building that directly overlooks the scene of this gun battle, which was NOT “a brief exchange of gunfire” as some news outlets reported it today, but a protracted gun battle lasting around 15 minutes in which at least 100 shots were fired. It is a miracle that the only police injuries were some minor cuts from broken auto glass, and another miracle that there were no civilian injuries or property damage because the area around Highway 580 at this intersection is extremely dense with residential buildings built right up next to it (my bedroom and porch literally look out at the traffic below.) I spent 45 minutes crouched on the floor behind my couch trying to keep my cats nearby, searching news outlets and Twitter for any information on what was happening as a friend tried to keep me calm via Gchat. The westbound lanes of the highway were closed all day today; the fact that it was Sunday meant that traffic all over the East Bay was merely nightmarish, rather than hellish.
As the story began to emerge – multiple firearms, suspect wearing body armor, packages detonated today by the bomb squad, a notebook containing plans to cause mayhem to the public – it came as a surprise to exactly no one that the suspect turned out to be angry about “”the way Congress was railroading through all these left-wing agenda items,” living with a mother who hoarded guns for “the revolution.”
White Conservative American Terrorism: Alive and well on our own soil. Thank you, Glenn Beck. Thank you, Tea Party. Thank you, survivalists and white supremicists. Thank you, Mark Williams. Thank you, Michele Bachmann. Thank you, Sarah Palin. Thank you, Homeland Security. Thank you, Pentagon.
Yeah, I’m still waiting for that apology from the right:
Alleged freeway shooter was targeting ACLU.
(Who, by the way, tirelessly work against the disenfranchisement of felons like him, and even offer free legal advice on how to get one’s voting rights restored post-felonies.)