David McElroy

If you want the contract to write tests for New York City schools, you need to know ahead of time that you can’t mention a good portion of human existence in your questions. For at least the fifth year, the NYC schools have produced a list of 50 words or phrases that are banned on tests.

Some of them are vaguely reasonable, I suppose, but many veer in the direction of pure insanity.

You can’t mention birthdays or birthday celebrations, presumably because a tiny number of people don’t celebrate birthdays for religious reasons. You can’t mention dinosaurs, although that one is a mystery. (The CBS story above speculates that it’s because that might offend creationists, but creationists believe dinosaurs existed.) It’s verboten to mention home computers, although it’s perfectly fine to mention them in a school or library setting. I assume they think that kids aren’t aware that many people have computers at home these days.

Religion and religious holidays aren’t supposed to exist, for the most part. They’re also not supposed to talk about junk food, for some reason. Maybe they think kids are unaware of that, too. It’s hard to say. Don’t dare mention divorce or houses that have swimming pools, either.

NYC school chancellor Dennis Walcott seems surprised by the uproar and says the system is merely providing guidance to test-makers for grades 3 through 8.

“So we’re not an outlier in being politically correct,” Walcott said. “This is just making sure that test makers are sensitive in the development of their tests.”

Keep Reading

Where did you stand on the great Etch-a-Sketch controversy last week? Were you with Team Romney, which started the controversy with an ill-designed metaphor? Or were you with Team Santorum or Team Gingrich, which went on the attack by putting Etch-a-Sketch toys into the hands of their candidates to wave around on stage?

Or were you like the media and the pundits? Were you so busy gorging yourself on various forms of the Etch-a-Sketch metaphor — from every angle — that you pounced on any morsel that might sound like a new perspective on the goofy line?

Or were you more like me? I was vaguely aware of a very stupid controversy, but I pretty much ignored it — because it meant absolutely nothing.

The Etch-a-Sketch story is the latest example of something I’ve seen for more than 20 years. When you’re inside politics, you can tend to assume — without ever consciously deciding to — that people outside the political bubble care just as much as you do about the trivia inside that bubble. I was reminded of that Tuesday because of a short story in the Washington Post. A reporter from the Post seemed surprised that a poll shows that 55 percent of people never even heard of the whole Etch-a-Sketch silliness last week.

My experience is that most people inside of politics honestly think that the things they’re talking about are on the minds and lips of intelligent people everywhere. They believe that what they do is so Important — with a capital I — that everyone must know and care about it. It’s not a conscious thing. It’s just an attitude that you pick up among them. They believe — on some level — that people care about the subtleties of the political arguments they’re in the middle of with their opponents. The idea that most people don’t even care about a tempest in a teapot such as the Etch-a-Sketch episode would suggest that maybe what they spend all day doing isn’t as important as what they believe — and they can’t handle that.

Keep Reading

Here are a few of the random things on my mind…

If you choose to live somewhere that a natural disaster is more likely to destroy your house, who should pay extra for that risk? You or people who choose to live in safer areas?

Along the Alabama Gulf Coast — and I’m sure other states of the Gulf Coast — insurance rates have been skyrocketing because of a couple of very expensive recent hurricanes. Insurance companies were hit with huge costs, so they now judge those places to be higher risks, driving up premiums. Not only that, but some companies are not selling insurance for those areas any more, because they believe the risk is too great for the potential profit. That makes sense, right?

Well, many of the people there are angry about the higher premiums and reduced competition. They want the government to force people in the rest of the state to pay higher rates in order to allow their rates to be lower. In other words, they want those of us in places such as Birmingham — who don’t face hurricane risks — to subsidize the choice they make to live in a risky place.

Why? They want something for nothing. They want to choose to live in a place with higher costs, but they want someone else to pay for it. Sometimes it seems that most of politics today is about one group trying to figure out ways to get someone else to pay for what they want.

Have you ever wondered why so many highways and bridges and government-owned buildings are named for politicians? It’s bad enough when things are named for those who were supposed to be great leaders, but it’s even worse when random things are named for politicians who have no claim to fame. I was driving today along John Hawkins Parkway (known as Alabama 150 to those of us who haven’t adopted the state’s new name) when this question hit me.

Keep Reading