Census 2010

We just completed the 2010 Census. I must say: What a waste, of everything, on every level.

First, the commercials. A waste of time, a waste of energy, a waste of airspace, and a waste of money. These visual disasters started on Super Bowl Sunday. No one had any clue what they were about. We all thought they were overblown. They appealed (and I use the term loosely) to a very, very small sliver of the population. Even those of us who appreciate that sort of wacky, spoofy, faux-dramatic style of humor thought they sucked, and certainly did not get the message across. If they felt it absolutely necessary to do this series of commercials, they could have done the same thing with no-name actors, but Ed Begley, Jr., Jennifer Coolidge, Don Lake... while they aren't A-list names, they are recognizable people and probably cost some actual cash.

Second, the pre-mail. A waste of paper, a waste of toner, and a waste of money. We got a letter in the mail with text on the front indicating that the contents were very important. VERY IMPORTANT! And that it was from the Census Bureau. So I opened it, thinking it was the census forms. But no, it was a simple, one-page letter informing me that we should expect the census in a week. Futurama fans out there will appreciate the similarities to Hermes Conrad's very own special episode in which he receives a letter from the Central Bureaucracy informing him that he should soon be receiving a letter from the Central Bureaucracy. But at least in the cartoon, the subsequent letter from the Central Bureaucracy came immediately after the alert letter. The 2010 Census did not in fact arrive in one week per the alerting pre-mail. It arrived at least two and a half weeks later.

Third, the Census itself. An utter joke. So much buildup and that was it? I remember the 2000 Census. I was sharing a townhouse with three other women at JMU, and we had a grand time deciding who was going to be considered Head of Household and filling out the sundry requested information like Occupation, Level of Education, Marital Status, etc. I guess that must have offended some people last time because the 2010 Census didn't seem to care for any information above our names, ages, birthdates, and race. That's it. It didn't want my maiden name or our full middle names (just middle initial). It didn't want our occupations. It didn't want our level of education. It didn't want ID numbers to differentiate Mr. Rosie from the other men out there with the same name. However, it did want both our ages as of April 1, 2010 AND our birthdates. You'd think that the computer program into which all this information will be entered could have calculated that out for them. Were they trying to test our math skills or honesty? And as for race, it first asked whether I'm of Hispanic descent, which I personally think diminishes those of us who aren't of Hispanic descent as of less interest. These sorts of things used to ask for race and gave the big categories, offering further specification for Hispanic or Asian. That pisses me off. Why is there only one all-encompassing checkbox for "White" and "Black," but "Asian" isn't sufficient for someone of, say, Thai descent? Why can you be not just "Hispanic" but Mexican or Dominican? If you're going to specify out like that, why not get specific with "White" and "Black"? Nothing whatsoever against my dear Rosie readers of Hispanic or Asian descent; I just question the dichotomy.

Anyway, my capital-i Issues with the Census checkboxes aside, I may be aging myself when I say that I remember when the census was about more than population density and finance appropriation. We used to use the census to trace genealogy, to determine demographics, to observe the movement of the population over time. What can you tell about me based on the 2010 Census other than I'm a 30 year old white chick with a blend-in name?