Learning is Struggle

In this recent blog post, psychology professor Nate Kornell explores a fascinating aspect of learning: challenge. He argues that clarity can actually be an impediment to learning, as it is only through challenges that people correct their misconceptions and reach true understanding.

As a former teacher and life-long student, I find this to be very true. As much as we are wont to believe that students miraculously learn through a teacher-dictated-top-down approach, learning is really a self-directed process.  As Kornell states, “According to growing mountain of research, understanding isn’t enough. It’s the struggle that makes us learn.”

What Are You Reading?

I'm deviating from the blogger path right now, but I'm very curious what online news sources/journalism you all read.  I've included my list below.  I'll include a blog list in another post.  I'd like to say that I get the time to regularly read all these, but...you know... Netflix... shit....

Al Jazeera English ** This is where I read most of my news, actually.
Alternet 
Propublica
The Hill
Freakonomics Blog ok, I know I said no blogs, but I consider this a pretty useful source of info
Salon 
Mother Jones love/hate, but they've been on point lately
Wired
Miller McCune -- just found this; it's AWESOME
Daily Kos
Real Clear Politics ok, they mostly consolidate news, but they do a damn fine job of it
The Nation


Of course, there's the usual suspects, too: WSJ, WashPo, NYTimes, etc.


So now it's your turn? What are you reading? What's good?


Megan


ps I know this post sounds like a pretentious "omg, guess how much *I* read?" thing. Eh, get over it.

Putting the Electric Car on the Back-Burner

Last week, GM announced that it was temporarily suspending manufacture of its Volt hybrid electric car, claiming that there was not enough market demand at the moment to justify production. Sales of the electric car have fallen short of projections, recently, despite several government interventions at the local and federal level to boost sales. These interventions included a $105.9 million grant to help produce battery packs and $151.4 million grant to produce battery cells,* a tax credit to buyers of electric cars, and the ability to drive in High Occupancy Vehicle lanes in the state of California.

The decision relieved many Congressional Republicans, who opposed the heavy hand of the government in this particular branch of the automotive industry and, needless to say, the President's ringing endorsement of it. They claim that, as Pennsylvania Representative Mike Kelly said in a recent House hearing, “When the market is ready...[the car] won't have to be subsidized.” Without delving into whose interests these Republican leaders serve (hint: it rhymes with Shmig Boil), their claim overlooks several key points that expose the most insidious myths of “free market” in this country.

Political Experience: Too Much of a Good Thing?

What makes a good president?

Leadership. Confidence. Eloquent communication. Organizational skill. Clear Vision.  Ability to compromise. Commitment to Integrity. Political experience...

Hold the phone there...

As counter-intuitive as it may sound, experience may actually be a liability to a presidential candidate. A recent New York Times article exposes how this is exemplified in Rick Santorum's campaign for the Republican nomination. Michael Shear reports that while Santorum has attempted to run on the basis of his 16-year Congressional career, his congressional track-record is now being used to portray him as an inconsistent “a creature of insider politics” who does not really uphold conservative values.

Shear neatly points out that this sort of mudslinging is very common when congresspersons run for office. While it would seem logical that legislators would want to run on their congressional record, proving their experience and know-how, it also opens them up to an intense amount of criticism. As Shear notes:

For every vote that becomes an effective campaign talking point, there is another that threatens to lead a candidate into explanations requiring awkward, process-laden Senate-speak. And those votes often cast a spotlight on the messy compromises and partisan accommodations that are a regular but despised part of the legislative process in Washington.

One sees, then, that there is a catch-22 to running for presidential office. One needs experience, of course, to run for such an essential position. However, the more experience one has in the spotlight of our nation's Congress, the more likely one is to have exposed oneself to liability. That liability could be a compromise on health care, supporting an issue which earned political enemies, or voting for a bill that contained a substance-less earmark (remember that Bridge to Nowhere?), but, regardless, it could cost just enough votes to lose the election.

What's 'Freedom of Conscience' Got To Do With It?

There is heated controversy surrounding the Obama mandate for employers to provide no-copay birth control under the Affordable Care Act. Unsurprisingly, the mandate has caused an uproar among religious conservatives, who insist that forcing all employers, especially those of religious organizations, to provide contraception is a violation of “freedom of conscience.” Despite a compromise to address the issue, wherein the burden of conscience would shift to insurance companies rather than employers, conservatives remain firm in their opposition.  They've even gone so far as to organize a House forum entitled “Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?” (I couldn't make this up, if I tried).  


Sadly, resistance to contraception access is part of a long historical trend.  While this remains constant, I am continually fascinated by the changes in argumentation for and against reproductive justice in this country.  Mostly, I have studied these rhetorical shifts in terms of abortion (if you would like a copy of my widely-read BA thesis, address inquiries at the bottom), but there is distinct overlap with the discourse around birth control, as well.

Can Social Media be a Vehicle for Social Change?

By now, many of you are familiar with the uproar surrounding the Susan G. Komen Foundation.  While many terrible things were discovered this week, there were also a few positive take-aways.  Among them, is the proof that, under the right circumstances, social media can be effectively utilized for social change.

For those unfamiliar with the situation, I’ll summarize: On January 31, the Komen Foundation decided to exclude Planned Parenthood from its list of grantee recipients, stating that it does not   award money to any organization under federal investigation (for an excellent refutation of this premise, see here).  However, as quickly acknowledged by the public, the ostensible reason served as a thin veil for the pro-life pandering of the Foundation’s leadership.

The public reaction was swift and clear:  there would be no support for a foundation which claims to support women’s health, yet hypocritically refused to assist an organization that provides routine checkups, cancer screenings, counseling, birth control, and STD testing for uninsured women.  News about the decision quickly flooded Facebook status updates, twitter feeds, and emails.  Thanks to Planned Parenthood and Moveon.org social media savvy, internet petitions against the Komen Foundation soon circulated.  Former advocates pledged to remove their support, or transfer it directly to Planned Parenthood.  Several high-level employees of the Komen Foundation resigned.  
The American public also spoke with its pocketbook.  Last year, Planned Parenthood was the recipient of over $680,000 from the Komen Foundation, which was earmarked for breast cancer screenings and treatment.  This amount of money was quickly surpassed by an outraged populace.  Within days, $3 milion was generated for Planned Parenthood, including a $250,000 matching grant from Mayor Bloomberg and a $100,000 donation from LIVESTRONG.

On February 3, the Komen Foundation bowed to the massive pressure and re-instated funding to Planned Parenthood.  In all, this was a huge victory women’s health proponents (although complicated by the fact that, as a country, we depend on private donors, in the first place, to ensure basic human rights).  However, beyond this, what I find fascinating is the instrumental role that social media played in affecting this outcome-- which leads me to the title of this post:

Can the internet, specifically social media sites, be a vehicle for social change?

Let's Talk About Sex...Education

As many of you know, my side gig when I'm not being a professional blogger is teaching high school English (well, maybe it's the other way around, but let’s pretend).  The other day, as a reward for finishing their state tests, I was letting my students talk quietly in groups and do word games.  I sat next to three of my 9th graders (3 girls and a boy) and quickly joined in on their discussion.

They were talking about teenage pregnancy, noticing the high number of girls in the high school who were currently pregnant.  The tone of the conversation started playful, but the students were asking some very serious questions.  The sole male student in our group directed the following question to me:

“Yo, Miss-- who do you think is more responsible for getting pregnant-- the boy or the girl?”