highcontent's Blog

In 2005 many of the contracts issued by governments, private parties and corporations along the coastlines, called for Category III or higher Hurricane Proof Buildings. Some called for Category IV Hurricane Proof Buildings. Now that is an expensive building to build as it must withstand a fifteen to eighteen foot storm surge and winds well in excess of 130 miles per hour. On the Saffir Simpson Scale the Category III goes from; 111 miles per hour to 130 miles per hour. The Category IV is 131 mph to 151 mph. You are talking about building a building, which is anchored down thirty feet and built out of solid steal and concrete. Not a cheap endeavor, yet there are folks who are ordering this level of protection and think that there is no price to high to pay to save their lives?

Now then you probably would not catch me riding out a Hurricane in the first place, but coming back to the only building still standing does seem worthy and these folks consider that over three decades or more they may need to rebuild twice and this way they can build it once and it ought be just fine. Hurricane proof building materials such as the new innovations in flexible concrete and steal seem to be a trend, which will continue as the Gulf Coast rebuilds and for those who are serious about protecting against the next Super Hurricane. Think on this new building trend.

Beginning in 1790, the United States of America became the first country in the world to call for regularly held censuses. However, the Constitution didn't treat everyone as equal. "Free persons" excluded American Indians living on treaty land and who were exempt from paying taxes (or voting). However, any male Indian who had joined the voting and taxpaying (read: white) population became considered a "free person" and had the right to vote. "All other persons" meant slaves, who were counted as 3/5 of a person for determining representation in Congress. The 3/5 rule was to compensate for the large slave populations of southern states such as Virginia and South Carolina, where slaves represented 39 and 43 percent of the populations, respectively. For comparison, Connecticut and New Jersey had slave populations of 1.1 and 6.2 percent, respectively.

In Article I, Section 2, the Constitution of the United States says:

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this Union according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons. The actual enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct.

You'll notice that the constitution states simply that a census be taken every 10 years, and leaves the details up to Congress. Therefore, for every census, Congress passes a special law authorizing the census to take place and hammering out the details. Each one is unique, and requests more and different information than the last. Ever since the first census of 1790, more than just an "actual enumeration" or count has been made. The government uses census data for many purposes, including taxation, number of Congressional representatives, and federal block grants.

Genealogists need to keep in mind that census data isn't always completely correct. During the time periods covered by the census data currently available to family historians (1790 to 1930), a most people didn't graduate from high school, including the census takers who went door to door, collecting the information. Mistakes and misspellings happen among even the most educated.

Plus, as difficult as it may be for us to imagine, some people didn't care how their names were spelled. If the person taking the census said is that "Stockdale" with a "dale" or "Stockdill" with a "dill," the citizen may have said, "oh, you could spell it either way."

The first nine censuses (1790-1870) were conducted by assistant federal marshals of the U.S. Federal Court system. One U.S. marshal was assigned to each federal court district, and he was tasked with hiring and assigning the assistant marshals to take the census in his district. In each territory, the territorial governor was responsible for the census enumeration. Unfortunately, state boundaries didn't always line up with court boundaries, a potential additional cause of confusion for genealogy research. Congress didn't get around to creating an actual "census office" until right before the 1850 census.

The 1790 census law required the U.S. marshals to deposit the original returns from their assistants with the clerks of the U.S. District Courts. These name lists remained in the clerks' offices, while the marshals' summaries from the various districts were sent to the office of the U.S. president. The law required that the president receive "the aggregate amount of each description of persons within their respective district." The marshals were to "file the original returns of their assistants with the clerks of their respective district courts, who are hereby directed to receive and carefully preserve the same."

This requirement was repeated in the census laws for 1800, 1810, and 1820. The president was to receive not the name lists, but summaries of the census tallies. This fact contradicts what several well-known publications use as the reason for many early census losses. For example, several genealogical reference books indicate that when the British burned Washington in 1814, the earliest census returns were destroyed. This incorrect statement can be found in the National Archives guides and Family History Library guides, for example.

However, the only census schedules that could have been in Washington, D.C., in 1814 were the 1810 schedules for the District of Columbia, which had its own U.S. District Courthouse. Since the 1810 D.C. schedules are lost, they may have been the only censuses destroyed when the British burned ashington in 1814.

Please visit the StockdaleAncestry.com Blog for more articles in this series, including specific information on which U.S. Census records are available today to genealogy researchers, and where to find them.

According to the U

The 2006 Atlantic

As if one round of shoddy reporting, speculation and guilt before innocence reporting wasn?t enough, the mass media is at it again in the latest round of the JonBenet Ramsey murder saga.

The media, which widely cast blame on JonBenet?s parents, John and the late Patsy, is laying blame on a man who made a confession that has not even been confirmed. Going through local supermarkets, one couldn?t help but notice the sensational headline in the New York Post, which read ?Snake On A Plane.? While it is true that John Karr is a disturbed man with a checkered past, it has not been proven that he murdered JonBenet Ramsey. Surely the media, which occasionally attempts to read through the bipartisan political spin of national politics would read through the fluff and try to get to the bottom of the case. Not true, unfortunately.

The mass media, especially CNN, has offered up non-stop coverage of this case, despite the fact that it hasn?t really evolved. Meanwhile, the war in Iraq claimed more Iraqi casualties (over 3,500) than any other month in the brief history of this war, Israel and Lebanon are teetering on the edge of a brittle ceasefire and the Bush Administration?s warrant less wiretapping has caught the ire of a federal judge.

Instead of continuing to stress the fact that Karr was wined and dined on his flight from Bangkok, Thailand, maybe the media should have emphasized that this is an ongoing investigation and that they will bring information when something actually happens. The media is doing what it unfortunately does best. They are speculating and not bringing the American public anything more than what they have already said. There is no difference in the news when an organization such as CNN shows a news package on Live Today and then shows it on Live From.

Actually, there is one difference, in that the shows are distinct by using one different final word, ?from? instead of ?today.? That has been about the only difference in the media?s coverage.

As a reporter for a local daily newspaper in Torrington, Connecticut, I am outraged that the media just continues to speculate and speculate about the case and doesn?t provide anything that says that Karr did it. Yes, he has a fascination with the death of a beauty queen, which is perverted to say the least. But that doesn?t prove that he?s guilty. I?m not defending Karr, but at least let justice run its course. Remember that everyone, even the most obvious cold-blooded killer, rapist or robber, is innocent until proven guilty. Or at least that is the way it should be.