The answer to the all-popular question, "When will I ever need to know this?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/opinion/27taylor.html?pagewanted=2

Let me just start off by saying that Marc Taylor is a genius. In his op-ed, he proposes an idea for universities to not just learn about the world for the sake of learning, but for the sake of understanding the problems in the world and proposing solutions. He discusses the worthlessness of having professor do research only in their department on obscure topics. He explains to readers that as professors stay within the boundaries of their department, the departments as a unit grow further apart. He proposes instead that universities in general change their curriculum and strategies from one that is narrow and focused in each department to one that is broad and inclusive of many departments. "Responsible teaching and scholarship must become cross-disciplinary and cross-cultural.," he writes. This makes so much sense! I think every school should do this. In any one subject, whether a grad school or a high school class, there are several different angles and perspectives of it. Consider African Studies, a course I took at NHS. This class incorporated language, economics, music, literature, art, and history into a study of past and modern Asian culture. Learning about all of these things together made me think in a new way. For once, I wasn't just learning about Shakespearean novels or how the sun uses nuclear fusion to create heat, asking myself, "When am I ever going to need to know this?" These were ideas and concepts I could actually incorporate into my studies and life.

Taylor says that if we are teaching students a multiplicity of ideas in each subject, we might as well be using students' knowledge to solve the world's problems. Many students today are preparing for futures that do not exist, explains Taylor. Many grad students will never be able to pursue a career in higher education like they hope. Instead, he proposes uses their intellect and motivation to make changes in the world that will help in the long run. For example, my AP Environmental Science course discusses the political, social, economic, and cultural impacts of issues like population growth. While fertility may not seem like part of an environmental science curriculum, it was important for me to understand why people decide to have more children in order to understand the trend of population growth. Population growth affects humans culturally, economically, socially, politically, and environmentally. There are so many people putting a strain on the earth today, that we might not be able to enjoy our good ol' planet for much longer. This is a problem that needs fixing! Taylor is basically saying that these kinds of problems are more important than "how the medieval theologian Duns Scotus used citations."

  This is logical - and cost-effective- advice.

Obama acknowledges a global economy at G-20

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102748012

President Obama's approach to, not to mention his recognition of, a global economy is a huge change from the Bush administration. As the president said in an interview on April 3, "America has shown arrogance and been dismissive" towards its allies. He also declared that America has "failed to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world." Although I am interested why these quotes did not appear in the article, I was extremely glad to hear my nation's leader finally talking about the role of America in the world - and not always the other way around.

 However, for a man who says that he is at the G20 conference "to listen," he sure is expecting a lot of the other nations there. President Obama said, "every nation bears responsibility for what lies ahead - especially now." In this article, the author mentions the war in Iraq frequently - which is appropriate, considering how much attention the war formerly known as the "war on terror" has received in the press lately. In an article titled "Obama Pledges New U.S. Relations With Europe," the author did a good job of covering the different aspects of relations that would change - including economics and military alliances. The author's choice to focus more on the war was interesting, and seems to mirror the moves of other journalists at this time. For many, the economy is getting harder and harder to read about.

Empathy Through Equality - This School Just Doesn't Get It

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/05/education/05empathy.html?pagewanted=1&em

There seems to be a liberal wave of empathy sweeping schools, and it's about time. This article describes how more and more public schools are now teaching empathy to their students through workshops, community service, school events, and encouragement from teachers. An interesting question here, although the author, Winnie Hu, does not emphasize it, is whether or not public schools should be permitted to teach certain character traits to its students. In my opinion, it is perfectly acceptable to try and make students "better people" by stressing empathy, but in this case, I don't think the school understands what exactly empathy entails.  

Winnie Hu uses a number of quotes from students, which supplements the subject nicely. Students say that the experience has made them more kind, and more aware of other people's struggles. One student says that he is now able to "step into someone else's shoes." 

I think this is great. A behavioral lesson of this sort can be very effective in ending America's bullying crisis, but as for "teaching" empathy, I don't see it. How can you "teach" empathy with a lecture? Or in a classroom with kids who aren't fully aware of the struggles of other Americans?

The schools that are employing this practice are predominately white, middle-class suburban schools. In most of these schools, the life struggles of these students do not vary nearly as much as their lower-class, urban counterparts. If these schools wanted to truly transform kids' ignorance, they wouldn't be keeping these kids in their same schools. When kids are simply trying to relate with their peers, it isn't that much of an accomplish. Sure you can reduce gossiping or fighting, but in order to preserve human rights, like the principal of the school says she is committed to, these kids have to be made aware of human rights issues besides students whose feelings were hurt when they weren't invited to a party. In my opinion, the author is caught up in the optimistic ideology of administration of this middle school, overestimating the drama that occurs at that school and all schools. 

Yes, it's great for kids get along, we all know how teenagers can be after all, but I don't think these schools should be praised for supporting "core values such as empathy, respect, responsibility and integrity" on such a small scale.

Trampled by Trends

This column made me laugh out loud. Virginia Hefferman is hilarious. Her annoyance with technology in this piece is something every human can relate to- in a laughable, "I've been there" kind of way. She writes, "And so the iPhone made suggestions. Did I want to say Ride? Ripe? Ruin? No. I wanted to say Running. You know, the way a human might. But with its know-it-all suggestions, the iPhone seemed to want to be more human, more helpful, jollier than I was!" This wit and sarcasm come out again when Hefferman talking about other "trends" of the age: "As I spoke I felt like a chippy freak — one of those people too intransigently cranky even to like Barack Obama, or recycling, or the Internet." The rhythm of Hefferman's column has people immersed in a conversation with her. She talks about the style of the iPhone and Apple in general, and how she felt compelled to buy the new, much-acclaimed item. In the end, this "refined, introverted, mysteriously chilled iPhone" was too much for the self-proclaimed technologically-inept writer. She trades it in for a Blackberry, and is "just as happy." In this piece, the iPhone represents much more than technology - it is a lifestyle. I love how Hefferman questions this, in a time when it seems like so many do not.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/05/magazine/05wwln-medium-t.html?em

The Economics of the Environment -Thanks to Pres. Obama, There Is Such Thing

As I'm reading "Spreading the Green," by Bradley Bowden, I find myself thinking, "Wow. This guy is on to something." In this article, Bowden describes the business he and his wife own and manage called "Green Shield International."  Together, the Bowdens are trying to create a "green referral network" to distribute environmentally-friendly products among friends, their friends, their friends, etc. 

In autobiographical-like prose, Bowden describes how he went from a farm-boy in Wisconsin to "green-man on campus;" his interests ranging from pottery to business to the health of the earth; all the while observing passive resistance by those confronted with environmental issues. His descriptions narrate a stigma shift - we as Americans have gone from "a Hummer nation" (thanks to Maureen Dowd for that phrase) to one with Smart Cars and Hybrids; then toting big shopping bags and now sporting recycled burlap bags. Earth-friendly is in, and the perks of looking after your carbon footprint are even better today, thanks in part to President Barack Obama himself.

Obama's stimulus package includes many environmentally-conscious features, ranging from green jobs, green energy, and green infrastructure. Monetary incentives for citzens using solar power, passive heating of houses, and electric cars have soon followed. Bowden mentions how some green products are hard to advertise in today's fiscal crisis - but thanks to President Obama, this may not be the case for long. I wouldn't doubt if he had more taxbreaks up his sleeve for those willing to help this cause. Oh how the culture has changed. Hopefully, it's not too late.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/05/jobs/05boss.html?_r=1&8dpc

Ford's New Project is Counting On Consumers

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/business/11electric.html?hp

In this article, Bill Vlasik takes a cautious approach to describing Project M, Ford's new effort to put electric cars on the market by 2011. According to Vlasik, this project may be easier than the company projects. He writes, "There are no guarantees that consumers — for all their stated concerns about global warming, dependence on foreign oil and unpredictable gas prices — will buy enough of them. They may balk, for example, at the limits on how far they can drive on a single charge." After all, most of the prospective electric models need to be charged for several hours to cover a day's worth of driving. Without the summer's high gas prices, the demand for these cars is simply not there.  To me, Ford is being irresponsible to initiate this effort while Americans are still so distrustful of automakers. If any of the companies, Ford, GM, Chrystler, want to make money in America, they have to start listening to the people spending the money. It's simple, if there is no market for electric cars in America, don't spend the money making them. And with a price like $40,000, on Chevrolet's new Volt, buyers have got to love this car.