Insomnia again. Sigh
The Constitution calls for a count, not an estimate.
No the Constitution calls for The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct (emphasis mine.
Which means Congress can decide how the count will be done. They decided not to use statistical estimates. The fact that not using estimates would affect the number of poor, homeless and so on who won't get counted does not necessarily mean that there was malice. Several possibilities allow:
(1) Our elected representatives could have met and held a solemn discussion of the relative merits of statistical sampling as a tool, considered the valid of statistical test of validity and decided that the mathematicians and statisticians were wrong.
(2) Another explanation is that they flipped a coin.
(3) And, of course, it could have been a purely political decision that has the effect of hurting minorities and the poor.
I opt for #3
The idea that the census has to be a count is a creation of Congress and a myth pushed by those only an exact count would benefit. I?ve heard (through friends) that the same assertion (census=exact count per the constitution) has been made by a number of the conservative talk show hosts, which serves to spread the myth and enshrine it as truth. Clearly they argue on purely ideological grounds.
Were the shoe on the other foot, (say if the residents of the heavily Republican city of Palm Beach refused to allow those tacky census takers in the city limits) Democrats would be calling as loudly for the count to reflect only those who responded.
Opposing anything Clinton stood for is perfectly logical
The logic escapes me. It is certainly an emotional response. Because of Clinton?s actions, everything he believes in must be wrong? Then do I conclude that the fact that a Catholic Priest in South Carolina recently admitted to sexually molesting children in his parish (over a 15 year period) invalidates the tenets of the Catholic religion? Or of Christianity in general?
Finally, what should I make of the ?liberal media? who reported the Miami Herald/Knight story of the recount on day one (which said Bush would have won if Gore?s standards had been used) that was picked up by the national media. The next day, when the same newspaper explained that had the count been done uniformly (as the Supreme Court directed but didn?t allow to proceed) Gore would have won. Strangely the ?liberal media? didn?t give that story much play. The consortium is still doing their recount.
I hear Texas has money problems. W apparently forgot the lesson of Joseph from the Bible. And may be forgetting again on the national level
I suppose a plea to ALL to try to maintain civility would be wasted? Or are we going to get into the "he/she started it" postings again. What seems to me to be the issue is not who started it, but who's going to stop it.