|
Daily News: 03.23.00
|
Censuring
the Census: an editorial
Some people are so rude! Like the U.S. Government, for instance.
Last week, they wanted to know my name, my age, my race, and whether
I own my house. Then they asked not only my marriage status, but
whether I was living with anyone who was not family. (Well, I
sniffed. That's certainly none of your business…)
Oh, they asked nicely enough -- this form is important, they
say, because filling it out means your state may get more federal
money. But then they slapped a threat on the back page --"YOUR
RESPONSE IS REQUIRED BY LAW."
Except for the age and the marital status part, (I want them
to know that not all women in their thirties get married), I
lied all the way through.
I know I'm not the only one. You know all those militants in
Montana and West Texas are having a ball with their forms -- a
bullet hole will do as well as a check mark, I suppose. But
you know they're not giving out their real names. I certainly
didn't. My main question in return: Who wants to know? (Which,
I admit, is an equally rude response.)
Turns out, that's a very good question. The U.S. Census Bureau
is restricted from selling your personal information to a private
company, and they promise that they will protect your privacy
right there on the back of the form. But
the Census Bureau is not restricted from giving your information
to the IRS, the FBI, the Justice Department, or any other government
agency that wants it.
There's altogether too much information out there about us individuals,
and way too much intra-agency gossiping going on for good taste.
I certainly don't want to contribute to the problem. Besides,
I'm guessing the IRS already knows where to find me since I send
them correspondence every spring. If they have something
to say, they can just say it to my face. 
--Louisa
C. Brinsmade
|
|
 In
her first national act since beginning her run for Senator of New York,
Hilary Clinton announced a new program to examine the overuse of psychiatric
drugs in young children. The initiative is based on a study published
last month in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)
that showed dramatic increases in the use of drugs to deal with behavioral
difficulties in young kids between 2-4 years old. The study reviewed
three U.S. regions between 1991-1995, and found that the use of Ritalin
and other stimulants increased over 200%, while the use of psychoactive
drugs such as Prozac increased by 150%.
"Some of these young people have problems that are symptoms of
nothing more than childhood or adolescence," the first lady said
during an announcement from the White House.
Ritalin is the brand name for methylphenidate, which increases alertness
by stimulating the nervous system. The drug is most often prescribed
to treat attention-deficit disorder, or ADD. The diagnosis, as well
as the drug, is an all-too-common response to the all-too-common restlessness
in young children, the study confirms. The inability
to sit still, read, or play in groups is a common symptom of ADD, but
most children exhibit this behavior to some extent in childhood.
Clinton's new program will begin immediately and involve additional
warning labels on the drug packages, a scientific study of their use
especially among preschoolers and a national conference in about six
months on children's mental health. The U.S. Department of Education,
the National Institute of Mental Health, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration,
and the Office of the Surgeon General are all involved in the program.
Are you, or is someone you know on Ritalin?
Check the Children and
Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder for further
information.
On the Dole?
She's doesn't want to play second banana, but a pro-Dole group has established
a petition drive to make former presidential candidate Elizabeth
Dole the VP nominee for the Republican party. The group is led
by Earl Cox from Charleston, SC who last
tried to draft Colin Powell for president. He has produced a website:
Bush-Dole-2000.com, and
has sent out mailings to Republican party leaders. As for Dole, she's
against the whole thing, and wishes Cox would stop, says her spokesperson.
The E-lection Generation
Only 10% of registered Democrats voted over the Internet during the
primaries, which was slightly disappointing considering the "revolution"
in Internet voting that was supposed to happen. But
the 10% represented 89,000 voters, a tremendous increase over the 1996
election, which only drew 13,000 registered Democrats to e-vote.
Election.com
was highly touted for being the breakthrough company hosting the first
binding Net election in the country during the Arizona primary. But
the results aren't all in yet: The Justice Department
is reviewing the companies methods for flaws, and a voter integrity
group is suing to throw out the election due to certain glitches.
Some voters didn't get their PIN that ensured them access to vote online
and some didn't have the right browsers on their computers. Other problems
are bigger than a glitch: minority voters are less likely to participate
in this online revolution, say the experts, due to lack of equipment
and familiarity with it. Minorities are traditionally left out of new
technology movements, either by virtue of socio-economic reasons (the
family can't afford one), or from racial bias in school funding (the
school can't afford one).
Voting online is likely to proceed apace, especially
since Election.com is merely the pioneer. Other online voting
companies are quickly springing up; Newvoter.com
and Votation.com are also looking
to compete in what will surely evolve into a nationwide e-lection
movement.
|
