… using the tombstone generator (via Mike), I created this:

I might be jumping the gun but I think its done.

Triggerfinger reports that the US Census bureau is providing the Department of Homeland Security with information about people who identified themselves as Arab on the 2000 census:

EPIC has obtained documents revealing that the Census Bureau provided the Department of Homeland Security statistical data on people who identified themselves on the 2000 census as being of Arab ancestry. The special tabulations were prepared specifically for the law enforcement agency. There is no indication that the Department of Homeland Security requested similar information about any other ethnic groups.

The article then draws a fairly obvious parallel:

During World War II, the Census Bureau provided statistical information to help the War Department round up more than 120,000 innocent Japanese Americans and confine them to internment camps.

I thought the purpose of the census was a head count to determine representation?

Update: I’m not buying it, but NoQuarters tells us that:

A spokeswoman for Customs and Border Protection told the newspaper the requests were made not for law enforcement purposes, but to help identify in which airports to post signs and pamphlets in Arabic to assist travelers.

Technorati has their political blog section, which is really cool. They have SayUncle classified as a liberal blog. Their links change pretty quick so that may not be there when you click it.

This is abysmal:

Eating en route to or while riding the subway here is a no-no. Stephanie Willett, a government employee, found that out the hard way recently. Finishing a candy bar on her way into a Metro station, she was arrested, handcuffed and detained for three hours.

Willett said she was eating a PayDay bar on an escalator descending into a station July 16 when a transit policeman warned her to finish it before entering the station. Both Willett and police agree that she nodded and put the last bit into her mouth before throwing the wrapper into a trash can.

Willett, a 45-year-old Environmental Protection Agency (news – web sites) scientist, told radio station WTOP that the officer then followed her into the station, one of several in downtown Washington.

“Don’t you have some other crimes you have to take care of?” Willett said she told the officer.

Washington has been under heightened security because of the continuing threat of terrorism. And last week, police declared a citywide crime emergency over rising juvenile crime.

The transit police officer asked for Willett’s identification, but Willett kept walking. She said she was then frisked and handcuffed.

“If she had stopped eating, it would have been the end of it and if she had just stopped for the issuance of a citation, she never would have been locked up,” Transit Police Chief Polly Hanson said Thursday.

Arrested for eating a candy bar. Ain’t that America.

They could have shot his ass. Pete details some drug war buffoonery in which the powers that be can’t tell the difference between some flowers and weed.

Robert Douglas has the skinny on a state enforced recall of Massachusetts compliant Glocks, whatever that means.

JTO writes:

On Sept. 13th the law banning 19 Assault Weapons will sunset. The Government is ignoring the loss of life and injury from these weapons.

This week a 12 year old Fremont boy was shot at a family gathering while playing with assault rifles. According to the News Messenger police say there were over 30 different types of weapons seized.

Incidents like this one confirm the opinion of more than 69% of Ohioans surveyed and 87 Ohio police chiefs and the Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police who favor strengthening the ban. The Washington, D.C.-based Consumer Federation of America (CFA) and Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) commissioned the survey.

I can’t tell from the post if they mean the kid was playing with an assault rifle. Or if he was shot with one while playing. Nowhere in the post does it say what sort of gun it was. Additionally, no one asks why, since there is a ban, he was shot? I am amazed when the opposition proves the ban is ineffective.

On using useless statistics to hammer a point home, the GOA says:

1 — Since the new laws went into effect, there has not been a single massacre of four or more people.

Well, not by guns, but there have been several using knives, carbon monoxide gas and arson reported by the Australian news media.

2 — Homicides committed with firearms have been declining since the 1997 ban took place.

To quote their reference, the Australian Institute of Criminology, “Homicides have been declining since 1969.” Also, keep in mind that Australia’s murder rate dropped 11%, while the U.S. murder rate dropped 32% — even though Americans bought 70 million guns during that same period.

3 — Since the gun ban, Australia has seen a drop in the use of firearms in armed robberies.

It is true, only 6% of the robberies in 2001 involved a firearm. However the robbery rate has risen 70% since the ban went into effect. Australia had a lower crime rate in 1992 than the U.S., now Australia’s combined rate of robbery, sexual assault, and assault with force is more than double that of the U.S. (See note.)

4 — Suicide rates using a firearm show a sharp drop after the gun ban.

Duuh! — It’s hard to shoot yourself when you don’t have a gun.

“Suicide rates did not fall, though there was a shift toward less use of guns.”

“The firearm related suicide rate had been falling for ten years before the gun ban.”

The total suicide rate in Australia is over 25% higher than the USA.

It seems that the Democrats are going to use the misunderstood assault weapons ban against their rivals because the ban has popular support:

When former President Bill Clinton sought to frame differences between Democrats and Republicans in his prime-time convention speech Monday, he made a point of citing the soon-to-expire federal ban on semiautomatic assault weapons.

“Our policy was to put more police on the street and to take assault weapons off the street – and it gave you eight years of declining crime and eight years of declining violence,” Clinton said to Democratic cheers. “Their policy is the reverse.”

The ex-president’s charges demonstrated how some Democrats hope to use the assault weapons issue against President Bush and members of Congress in the campaign.

Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry supports extending the ban, which is due to expire Sept. 13 unless Congress renews it. Such an extension appears to have public support. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll in November found that 78 percent of respondents favored keeping the ban.

But while many Democrats would like to cast the issue in good-versus-evil terms, it’s more complicated than it appears to be, like many matters of public policy.

For one thing, Bush also has expressed support for extending the assault weapons ban since at least the 2000 campaign, putting him on the same side as his Democratic foes, at least rhetorically. Still, critics say Bush is doing nothing to promote an extension of the ban, enabling him to reap the political benefits of his position without upsetting his gun-rights allies.

Some popular support can be attributed to misunderstanding the ban. The questions in polls tend to center around using phrases like do you support a ban on AK47s? and the like. Maybe if the Republicans who oppose the ban spent effort informing people what the ban really did, they could gain some ground or at least expose supporters of the ban for what they really are.