But, as this New York Times article reports, politicians aren’t stopping to take logic into consideration when putting together evaluations. Schools around the country are dealing with problems in the evaluation systems that their states have produced. The article notes an anecdote from a school district in Tennessee, in which each teacher’s lesson is evaluated on 12 dimensions, including one that measures how well the teacher broke students into groups. Should every lesson include a groups-based component? Of course not, and thus a teacher is either forced to produce a lower quality lesson in order to do well on this item or take a low score on this item and hope to do well on all other dimensions.

States aren’t the only ones implementing poorly constructed rubrics for teacher evaluation. Administrators are just as bad. Says Troy Kilzer, principal of a high school in Tennessee, “[You] know when a good lesson is being taught without looking at a rubric.” Whether Mr. Kilzer is referring to some kind of “instinct” for figuring out which teachers are good or whether he means that a good lesson is apparent to all with no rubric needed, these kinds of statements do nothing to instill confidence in the evaluation process. If a good lesson is so readily apparent, then a rubric can easily be developed. And if Mr. Kilzer wishes to use instinct to evaluate teachers, then teachers under his supervision should be very worried. It’s easy to imagine a personal difference turning into a biased gut reaction to the teacher’s ability in the classroom.

Even teachers who support the system seem to be hurt by it. The Times reports on one such supporter: “in Chester County [Tennessee], a gym teacher recently spread playing cards around and had students run to find three that added to 14.” This sounds like an innovative way to work math into physical education curriculum, but we should evaluate this performance not against criteria for broader learning, but rather against the standards for physical education. Does running around help promote lifelong physical fitness? No. Does finding cards encourage a healthy relationship with exercise? Again, no. Does the activity help kids get better at math? Absolutely not. This integration of multiple curricula into one lesson produces worse outcomes on all reasonable measures. Yet this teacher is driven to think “outside the box” because of nebulous and poorly implemented standards of evaluation.

Some, like Daniel Weisberg, executive vice president at The New Teacher Project, a nonprofit agency, argue, “[you] have to start the process somewhere.” And such sentiment is reasonable. New teacher evaluations may not be perfect the first time around. But Mr. Weisberg’s reasoning behind starting somewhere (even with bad results) is quite poor: “If you don’t solve the problem of teacher quality, you will continue to have an achievement gap.” Once again, we see someone convinced that all problems in America’s public education begin and end with teacher quality. And thus, new evaluations, even if they cut like a cleaver rather than a scalpel, will do more good than harm. Mr. Weisberg has lots of experience working with schools, but his background is in political science and law not in education or testing. And thus he is not in a position to suggest that starting with something of poor quality is better than waiting until a better metric can be developed.

States must realize that the science of testing and evaluation is a complicated one, with a rich theoretical foundation and thousands of scholars working in the field. Not depending on this firm basis for producing teacher evaluations hurts everyone. It hurts the teachers who do not receive valuable feedback. It hurts schools by not allowing them a useful tool for meaningful evaluation. And it hurts kids, whose teachers are put on edge by inaccurate and ineffective measurement devices. We wouldn’t subject our children to tests that do nothing to measure their learning; we shouldn’t force our teachers to endure it either.

Though upward social comparison is often suggested as the formation for aspiration (working hard to become like someone better than you), I think downward social comparison, in some cases, can actually provide more of a boost toward hard work, especially in the short term. The next time you need to get something done, try these steps to motivate yourself.

First, consider the task and imagine it being done by other people who are less able than you. For example, let’s say you know you need to clean your kitchen but don’t feel particularly motivated. Think to yourself about what would happen if your roommate or partner were to do the job for you. Would they do as good a job as you would? Or let’s say you need to write the introduction to a research paper that you just aren’t excited about. Can anyone else write it as well as you can?

Second, imagine how successfully you will be able to complete the job compared to those unskilled others. For the kitchen, think about how much nicer the counters will look after you’ve gone over them. Think about how much neater the refrigerator will be arranged if you are the one who does it right. For the paper, think about how much better written it will be if you do it. Imagine the feeling of pride when you produce a product that no one could do as well as you.

Third, use this feeling of success and skill as a motivator to get started on the project. Think most on the short term. Cleaning the kitchen is easier to motivate yourself to do using downward social comparison than a much larger project (like redecorating the kitchen). It makes more sense to use this technique for writing the intro to a paper than doing an entire dissertation.

This practice likely won’t work if you generally consider yourself unskilled at the task you need to do. If you think you are just miserable at cleaning, then you will have a hard time using downward social comparison. If your writing skills make Stephanie Meyer (author of the Twilight books) look like Charles Dickens, then you won’t be able to imagine yourself doing the task better than someone else. But in realms where you have some degree of skill, this technique may come in handy.

My sincere apologies if this malicious code affected your ability to access content on this blog.

The problem is not that ALEC is attempting to have influence; this kind of action is done by thousands of groups every year. Instead, the problem is that ALEC’s talking points are being taken up by numerous people, conservative or liberal, and ALEC uses this to sow discontent in groups that should be united. Just like White supremacist David Duke opposing the Iraq War, individuals must be careful to find nuance in their positions to avoid making groups like ALEC more powerful.

Chief among the talking points is opposition to tenure for public school teachers and rights of teachers to collectively bargain. Many who oppose ALEC’s agenda may also speak out against the rights of teachers, claiming that such rights systematically degrade education quality. Though these arguments ignore fundamnetal truths about the nature of tenure (including information on dismissing a tenured teacher), they are still persuasive because they suggest that unions are causing poor education outcomes.

Yet few among those educated people who link the rights of teachers with poor education would take up the rest of ALEC’s agenda. ALEC’s ultimate goal is to remove power from local school boards and place power in the hands of state governments; this way, ALEC can have more direct influence over a state’s education system and use that power to encourage more school vouchers, greater control for corporations, and increased reliance on charter schools, rather than public schools. Reducing the rights of teachers is just the first step in ALEC’s master plan.

Thus those who inadvertently take up ALEC’s talking points are making it easier for ALEC to get their way. If teachers have reduced rights, then dismissing teachers becomes much easier. If a school can be shown as “failing” because it produces students with merely average test scores, then all those teachers can be summarily fired. And if an entire school is dismissed, then there is little other choice than to replace that public entity with a private one. “Public institutions have, yet again, failed our children,” ALEC will cry. “And therefore the only solution is to let the success of private industry take over.”

The question becomes, when will it be easier to fight ALEC – now, even if it requires protecting the rights of teachers, or later, when teachers are no longer a potent entity in the battle to save public education? Opposing the rights of teachers in their entirety (e.g., favoring eliminating tenure rather than small modifications; preferring to get rid of all collective bargaining, instead of carefully tailored adjustments) gives ALEC and their patsies in state legislatures around the country the ability to dramatically reshape our education landscape.

ALEC will not rest until they have removed government from the business of education, resulting in an even more dangerously tiered system in which the rich get the best education and the poor get none at all. This is the natural outcome of a market-based education system; it is a byproduct of ALEC’s plans that will come about if market logic is followed through to its end. Aligning with ALEC in these early stages, even inadvertently, ushers in the beginning of the end for public education. In other words, it is not possible to oppose teacher rights while also supporting strong public education.

“I love this state. It seems right here. The trees are the right height. I like seeing the lakes. I love the lakes. There’s something very special here… the great lakes, but also all the little inland lakes that dot the parts of Michigan. I love cars. I don’t know, I mean, I grew up totally in love with cars.”

For those of us who felt Mr. Romney hated lakes because they represented a thorn in the side of private industry, this should clarify things. For anyone who felt Mr. Romney didn’t car about cars because he loved private jets better, this should help set the record straight. Mr. Romney does love Michigan, the state he grew up in. It’s got everything he loves.

If you watched the video linked above (apologies for the low quality), then you may be wondering just how in the world this man was able to run a large, successful business. Contrast Mr. Romney with a CEO like Steve Jobs; there is no comparison. Mr. Jobs was known for his ability to create a new reality, to say something that was arguably or factually false and have people believe it. Mr. Jobs could pitch a product that no one knew they wanted and, by the end of the presentation, have consumers around the world ready to buy immediately. Mr. Romney can’t even convincingly say what he loves about the state he grew up in. Mr. Jobs says the iPad is magical and demonstrates why. Mr. Romney says he loves Michigan because the trees are the right height.

One might rightly judge that this is politics, not business. Mr. Romney’s ability to speak off the cuff matters very little in an age of heavy control by campaign managers. Mr. Romney’s supporters can wish this to be true all they like, but if Mr. Romney wins the Republican nomination, he’s going to face no mere politician; he’s going up against the Steve Jobs of presidents. Barack Obama’s speaking gaffs, what few there have been, are caused by Mr. Obama speaking too truthfully, suggesting, for example, that desperation about the future is what makes people cling to guns and religion and thus vote against their best interests. We worry about a statement like that not because it doesn’t reflect what Mr. Obama thinks, but because we wish Mr. Obama wouldn’t be quite so honest.

Mr. Romney has the opposite problem: in matters of no importance, he gives answers that sound like lies. What will happen to Mr. Romney during a debate with Mr. Obama, when asked about a particularly contentious issue, and Mr. Romney has to explain his position? If he answers like he did about his love of Michigan, A) no one will know what his position is, and B) he’ll look exceptionally uncertain. If Mr. Romney appears flustered expressing his love for his home state in front of a friendly crowd, how will he deal with real issues speaking to a national audience?

Maybe Mr. Romney can handle the big issues much better than the little ones, but what Republican voter in Michigan or elsewhere is excited by these gaffs? The Michigan example isn’t even something taken out of context, like previous problematic statements about corporations being people, liking to fire people, being worried about getting fired himself, and not caring about the poor. It’s just “Mitt being Mitt” – uncomfortable, unconvincing, and unresponsive to what must be dozens of hours of coaching from his campaign staff. It won’t take many more answers like the Michigan one before you can add another “un-” to that list: “Unpresidential.”

Of particular importance is the fact that Mormons do not recognize any baptisms performed outside of their faith. A baptism is meant to remove from the receiver the “original sin” of man that prevents a person from entering into heaven after death. It is a sacred ritual for Christians and one with strong cultural and religious significance. Thus all Mormons who practice their faith in line with the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints must believe that all non-Mormons will go to hell.

This extreme view has lead to some extreme practices, including “proxy baptisms” by the Mormon Church. This process involves the baptisms of living people as proxies for a person who is already dead. In other words, it allows Mormons to retroactively baptize people into their faith so that they may go to heaven instead of hell. Mr. Romney is reported to have done this for his father-in-law, a man who was not Mormon.

The trouble is that the practice doesn’t end with a family ceremony. Author and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel has criticized the Mormon Church for their proxy baptisms of Holocaust victims; that is, the Mormon Church has proxy baptized Jews killed by the Nazis into the Mormon faith, believing this to rescue them from hell and allow them to ascend into the “Celestial Kingdom.”

Given that Mr. Romney did this for his father-in-law, it is clear that he believes the practice is necessary in order to enter into heaven after death. This suggests that, while Mr. Romney might say that he does not support proxy baptism for Jews or others against their wills, he also believes that those people are still damned. Though many Christians should believe the same thing for Jews, Muslims, and atheists alike, Mormons take this one step further. Mr. Romney is essentially saying that any Christian baptism is not enough to get into heaven. Mr. Romney believes that most of America is going to hell, no matter how virtuous a life a person has lead. If you aren’t Mormon, you aren’t “saved.”

For a man who already has trouble exciting the Republican base and who can’t seem to connect with conservative Evangelicals, this issue will not and should not be ignored. After all, this isn’t an issue of private faith or of faith with many different variants, like Christianity. Not all sects of Christianity believe that a personal faith in Jesus Christ as the one true son of God is necessary for salvation. Some believe that Christ’s crucifixion is salvation for all mankind, no matter what. And thus a Christian politician could legitimately say that he does not believe a lack of baptism is akin to a life in hell.

But Mr. Romney is not just any Christian; he is Mormon. He spent two years of his life preaching the faith in France, because he believed it was necessary in order to save people’s souls. He was kept from serving in the Vietnam War thanks to a missionary exemption. And he proxy baptized his father-in-law against the his wishes. Mr. Romney is not a man with passing or happenstance faith. This is a man who looks into the eyes of a potential voter, shakes his hand, asks for his vote, wishes him the best of luck, and HONESTLY AND COMPLETELY believes that that man is going to hell when he dies, unless he converts to Mormonism or has a proxy baptism. Those kind of extreme religious views make a conservative Catholic like Rick Santorum look downright liberal.

But consider one technological advancement that may indeed be showing a cyclical trend – the link between instant messaging and text messaging. Though email remains the longest surviving internet-based communication technology, instant messaging (IM) is a close second. IM allows two individuals who are concurrently online to exchange text-based messages in real time. IM had its (first?) heyday in the early 2000s, as internet connectivity was widespread but cell phone text messaging was not. Though for a while the ability to access IM on a phone was a touted feature, IM soon lost popularity to text messaging.

There are many reasons we can speculate as to why text messaging won out over IM. The messages are more private (on a phone, rather than on a computer screen). The devices are more portable. Cell phones also became nearly ubiquitous among young people, whereas a computer needed to be shared with a family. But some data suggests that text messaging may have reached its (first?) apex. In countries with early and high text messaging penetration, rates of text messaging are down for the first time ever.

Couple this with a new feature Apple has rolled out, iMessages. Apple has integrated into its iOS mobile devices the ability to send text-like messages, circumventing the mobile carriers lock on text messages. At first, this appeared to be simply a nice perk for iOS users, especially because Apple would automatically switch to sending a free iMessage rather than a (potentially) costly text message. But now, Apple is bringing the same functionality to their desktop operating system with a new application called Messages.

This application allows for nice and helpful integration between phones, tablets, and computers, but in reality it is nothing more than an instant messaging application. In other words, Apple is touting old technology as new, albeit under a different name (Messages instead of their previous iChat). And while the new features will be more tightly integrated into their OS than, for example, an app like Skype, there is fundamentally nothing different in Apple’s iteration.

Was Dennis Duffy right? Is technology cyclical? Perhaps only in Apple’s “reality distortion field,” where a “new” feature can make even the old feel exciting again. Are people aching to return to the days of all-night IM sessions? Are the disadvantages of tiny cell phone keyboards finally winning out over the privacy of the device? Has computer ownership reached an appropriate saturation point that the “family computer” no longer exists? I’m still skeptical. Marketing an old feature as a new one doesn’t yet mean we will see a resurgence of computer-based instant messaging. But in case that does happen, let me know your screen name in the comments. I’ll IM you… er, sorry, iMessage you… later.

From the article:

“Most of the homos I know use homophobic slurs, and it’s never a problem unless someone who’s not a part of the group is using the word,” Syd says. “But a lot of people take things out of context, and you’ve got to understand that there is a difference between saying, ‘Hey, you faggot’ and ‘Hey, faggot.’ When Tyler says ‘faggot,’ he’s not referring to gays, he’s referring to lame people. And in our vocabulary, that’s what the word ‘faggot’ means. I’m not offended by the word ‘faggot’ — and I am one.”

The problem with this answer is that it’s not particularly satisfying. She may not be offended, but should other people be? After all, the repurposing of a hateful word into a word that is still derogatory, just with a different meaning, isn’t exactly some kind of emancipating act, as some have argued the repurposing of certain racial epithets has been.
Syd herself seems confused – she is a “faggot,” she says, but the word means a person who is lame.

This confusion has launched some critics into a bit of a flutter. For example, Mindy Abovitz, editor of Tom Tom Magazine, recently canceled a planned piece on Syd because of her actions in a music video. Others seem to engage with Syd’s response to Out’s question, suggesting that her answer at least deserves some critical evaluation.

Here’s the truth: Syd’s answer deserves no critical attention. She is a 19 year old woman with music talent but no particular intelligence. She has no understanding of the nuance or history of the use of a gay slur to instead mean something derogatory to all people. And she isn’t capable of writing some kind of treatise on homophobia and language. So just like we shouldn’t try to parse Tyler, the Creator’s misogynistic and homophobic response to Tegan and Sara’s criticism of his lyrics, we shouldn’t waste time trying to find an inherent truth in Syd’s nonsensical and defensive answer to those same lyrics.

The same consternation occurred in criticism of M.I.A.’s lyrics supporting a Sri Lankan terrorist group. While some tried to find intelligence in her lyrics, others (like me) pointed out that M.I.A. claimed no real knowledge on the topic. We shouldn’t waste time trying to figure out a deeper meaning behind those lyrics, and we shouldn’t bother parsing Syd the Kyd’s defense of homophobia. Suffice it to say, she’s ignorant and the only thing that will make a difference is a good dose of education. Considering she claims to never travel beyond a two block radius from her apartment, that education may take a while.

But it is still worth considering just how a general election Romney campaign would shape up against President Barack Obama, a consummate campaigner and a person who is sometimes accused of presenting nothing but vision. The race may look a lot like the dichotomy that Hillary Clinton tried to draw between herself and Mr. Obama in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary. She suggested that her own leadership style was one of CEO, leading the government on a day-to-day level, while Mr. Obama was content to sit back and let the legislative branch do the work. Mr. Obama did all but agree with this assessment.

Given Mr. Romney’s business background, this comparison seems like it could emerge again. Mr. Romney can present himself as a careful leader, accustomed to running companies, a state government, and a large event (the Olympics). He can suggest that Mr. Obama’s lack of similar leadership has hurt the economy, or at least failed to make it grow as fast as possible. It’s likely to be the only line of attack that seems consistent with Mr. Romney’s many, many different positions on issues.

But will it sting Mr. Obama? This is the reason why conservatives may be uncomfortable with Mr. Romney running on his record as a business leader. Certainly some shady practices of Bain Capital don’t help Mr. Romney look like an ordinary guy. Buying a business, breaking it into pieces, selling those pieces, laying off thousands of workers, and making a profit along the way: this is not a practice to tout when running for president. Mr. Romney, in essence, grew his own business by stepping on other businesses. Is this the kind of vision Mr. Romney has for the United States?

If this was England when Margaret Thatcher became prime minister, we might see it as a powerful vision: sell off state industry and let the economy flourish, as free market thinkers declare it will. Today in America, however, though the federal budget deficit is large, the government’s size is small, at least in terms of what can be cut. Will Mr. Romney overhaul Medicare and Social Security, saving money while keeping people’s benefits the same? This is unlikely. Will he cut defense spending? Again, that’s an unpopular position to run on, let alone sell to Congress.

And thus, unless Mr. Romney presents some kind of new vision, he sounds like a generic candidate. His points are, first, that Mr. Obama has failed because the US economy isn’t recovering fast enough from the biggest recession since the Great Depression. Second, that he can do a better job because of his leadership experience. But there’s little else to get voters fired up. Democrats know the pain of trying to win an election on an “anybody but him” platform. Senator John Kerry failed to defeat President George W. Bush in 2004 because, in part, there wasn’t enough excitement from voters; ousting Mr. Bush for Mr. Kerry seemed like too little change.

Will the thrill of ousting Mr. Obama be enough to get Republican voters to turn out for Mr. Romney (or whoever the eventual nominee is)? Time will tell. But if Mr. Romney can’t present a compelling vision for the country, then it doesn’t bode well for the other potential nominees, each of whom has many more weaknesses, whether multiple infidelities or comically extreme conservative views. In the race between visionary and CEO, a little pizazz can go a long way. We’ll see if Mr. Romney ever finds his inner showman.

Critics suggested that much of Mr. Walker’s efforts had nothing to do with the economy, and in fact, may have hurt Wisconsin’s chances for prosperity. These claims seem meted out by job losses; for the last six months, Wisconsin has lost jobs while the nation has added them. But Mr. Walker’s claims of getting everything right for Wisconsin’s books still could stand. Indeed, with states like Michigan showing unexpected budget surpluses, it may have been possible for Wisconsin to do the same.

Alas for Mr. Walker, such an outcome was not to be. Despite all of Mr. Walker’s cuts to the state budget, Wisconsin is once again showing a projected budget deficit of $143 million for the 2013 fiscal year. This, after all the “repair” bills that were supposed to fix the state’s budgeting. This, after the national economy is on the rebound with good economic numbers not seen for years. This, after Mr. Walker blamed state workers for the budget woes and in turn severely restricted their rights. And this, after Mr. Walker pushed through another severe round of budget cuts for the University of Wisconsin system, in addition to the heavy cuts already imposed.

Scott Walker’s policies have failed Wisconsin. This is evident even without this bad budget news, as Mr. Walker is facing almost certain recall, meaning he will have to run again just to keep his job. But the recall was mostly over differences in rights for workers and preferences for how to solve the state’s budget crisis. These new budgetary numbers add a quantifiable way to see the extent of Mr. Walker’s failed policies.

The debate over how to balance Wisconsin’s budget begun a year and a half ago, as the campaign for governor was under way. Mr. Walker won the election and had an opportunity to push through his plans: no new taxes and instead austerity for all. Imagine this as a grand experiment to see which is better, cuts only, tax increases and cuts, or only tax increases. Mr. Walker favored only cuts and we now have evidence that this kind of policy is a failure.

This failure should become, newly, what the recall election is about. Separate from differences in budgetary priorities, removed from ideological differences about the rights of workers, this recall fight can and should be about one simple question: did Scott Walker’s policies help or hurt Wisconsin’s economy? There is no evidence that they helped, and plenty of evidence that they hurt. Wisconsin can no longer afford Scott Walker as our governor.