Random rants or posts by a Brown Guy who is not always Angry.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| The Temple of Hume | ||||
|
||||
“I never realized that a respected newsman on a respected news network stating that his religion is superior to another would earn him angry e-mails on the Internet; the Internet, where from what I understand, only nice things are said. I forget how hard it is to be Christian because it’s so easy to be Muslim.” – Aasif Mandvi
I have never understood why 911 calls and transcripts are made public? What public necessity resides in an emergency phone call usually made during the course of events which are often quite traumatic or life and death matters being made available to everyone?
The only thing I found was an opinion piece by the Attorney General of Florida Bill McCollum cited the “Florida Emergency Telephone Act” which states:
“Any record or information obtained by a public agency or a public safety agency for the purpose of providing services in an emergency and which reveals the name, address, or telephone number of any person requesting emergency service or reporting an emergency by accessing an emergency telephone number ‘911’ system is exempt from the provisions of s. 119.07(1), except that such record or information may be disclosed to a public safety agency. The exemption applies only to the name, address, or telephone number of any person reporting an emergency while such information is in the custody of the public agency or public safety agency which receives the initial ‘911’ telephone call. . . .”
That basically states that information gotten from the call except for name, address and telephone number can be made public but still does not answer why such is necessary.
Anyone with any idea or if you want to point me in the right direction, feel free to let me know and I’ll put up an update and give proper credit of course.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://i0.wp.com/img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?w=525)
Here is the link to the Nate Silver article with all the statistics written out in words for you readers out there.
It has been over 14 years since I last visited Pakistan and this is certainly something I do not remember although my mom is well aware of the tradition that dates back over 100 years. Literally every inch of a truck is covered with artistic design made by hand and then carefully placed onto the truck and each region has their own design to leave their mark and it certainly brings a roadway to life.
Here is the reporter’s first hand claim from her blog:
It’s my first trip to Pakistan, and one of the things that immediately jumped out is the trucks. I realize that sounds strange, but the trucks here are like no other I have ever seen. They are not lumbering and drab monstrosities but a canvas of spectacular and intricate art, a kaleidoscope of exploding colors. I am not one to have much patience for traffic, but here I could sit and watch the roads for hours. Each truck is unique, each a different combination of designs, poetry and other adornments.
What made the “truck art” even more intriguing was just how intricate it is. The designs are made up of tiny pieces of tape, all done by hand. The artisans’ fingers move at breathtaking speed and precision.
Arwa Damon, CNN’s Jakarta-based correspondent covering stories from Indonesia and the surrounding region, graduated from Skidmore College with a double major in French and Biology and a minor in International affairs was born in Boston but went on to spend most of her childhood in Morocco and Turkey. She is fluent in English, Arabic, French and Turkish which is certainly a very useful ability to communicate with the local populous.
It is certainly great to see a different perspective of coverage regarding the news from Pakistan and one that you rarely see here in the West.
Photos: Artistic Gallery From Pakistan
I got this article this past weekend from my friend Krishna who showed me a piece by John S. Baker and Elliott Stonecipher from the Wall Street Journal whoraised an interesting question regarding the upcoming census which occurs at the turn of every decade in their opinion piece titled “Our Unconstitutional Census“.
A census, for those of you who are unaware, not only counts the number of people in this country but also determines the allotment of House members and in turn Electoral College votes that each state gets for the next 10 years. Although such a survey is not the most accurate, it is probably still the best way to determine in which areas of the country the population has shifted or increased and deserve their appropriate representation.
All of this seems perfectly fine and this is a process that has been done in this country since the 1700’s. So what’s the big commotion this time?
It turns out that the past few census calculations (since the 1970 one) has not asked a person’s legal status in the country. That right there raises serious questions about who should and should not be included. Should a person who might not be paying taxes and definitely not exercising their civil duty in voting deserve to be included in a measure of how the representation of our congressman and women are redistributed?
It has been the Democrats who have held the majority in the Congress at the turn of each decade (except for 1999 when Republicans held both Senate and House of Representatives), and they technically do “ask” for certain things to be included and not included in the short/long forms. Democrats usually known for their softer stance towards the Latino community but that was not a stance changed by the Republicans when they last had a chance 10 years ago.
By 1980 there were two census forms. The shorter form went to every person physically present in the country and was used to establish congressional apportionment. It had no question pertaining to an individual’s citizenship or legal status as a resident. The longer form gathered various kinds of socioeconomic information including citizenship status, but it went only to a sample of U.S. households. That pattern was repeated for the 1990 and 2000 censuses.
According to that segment from the article, a person’s legal status hasn’t been in question for a census since the 1970 one. Wall Street Journal in its Latino-hating bias just casually drops that line and continues going on with its 2010 census hating bash.
Personally, I don’t think a person who is not of legal status should be included in determining the proportioning of the representatives. However, such a statement or belief begs the question that should any person be counted that is a citizen of the country? How do you determine who is a productive member of society? Is it one who has the paper works to show for it? Is it one that might be doing the job at the bottom of the food chain to keep the foundation of the economy rolling?
This issue is more complicated than a simple yes or no but I believe until a better resolution can be made on how to accurately represent the illegal residents in this country, those bordering or harboring a vast number of the aliens do not deserve to be represented whether it is in the bright blue state of California or the burning red of Texas – neither party should benefit from such an act and the correction should be made to go back to the way it was pre-1970 census.