Computerworld:

President Obama wants to simultaneously improve education while getting costs under control. School districts are so stressed financially that they’re laying off teachers and ending valuable programs. Here’s one modest proposal from the tech blogosphere: Get rid of paper textbooks in favor of digital books and materials for high school and college students as a way to both improve education and cut costs.

Paper textbooks are problematic in two ways: First, they’re paper. Second, they’re textbooks. Let me explain.

What’s wrong with paper?

All the standard arguments against paper books are especially true for textbooks. Paper requires the cutting down of trees, transport of trees, paper, then books and the use of toxic inks. Paper books are bad for the environment. But textbooks are constantly being replaced with new editions, with the old ones rendered unusable, and can’t be sold used or even stocked in a library. Because teachers require new editions, the old editions are useless and end up in landfills.

JCCC:

SCHOLAR IN RESIDENCE DISCUSSES MEDIA, ELECTIONS ON APRIL 8, 9

Zoe Oxley, a researcher in the field of U.S. media and voting, will be the Johnson County Community College scholar in residence Monday-Friday, April 6-10, with two free public lectures.

• Media Coverage of War: Presidential Power, News Profits and Democracy at 7 p.m. Wednesday, April 8, in the M.R. and Evelyn Hudson Auditorium of the Nerman Museum of Contemporary Art
• Women, Gender Stereotyping and Elections in the United States at 11 a.m. Thursday, April 9, in the Craig Community Auditorium

Oxley, chair of the department of political science, Union College, Schenectady, N.Y., has been a professor at the college since 1998 teaching political science, political psychology and women’s studies. She has twice led a U.S. Politics Internship Program in Washington, D.C., as a well as a term abroad in York, England.

As an expert in elections, women in politics, public opinion and media coverage in American politics, Oxley has many publications and is much sought-after as a conference participant.

“Democratic Ideals, Democratic Practice,” a book Oxley co-authored with Rosalee Clawson, was published in 2008. One of her works in progress is Variation in Media Coverage of Women Candidates: Gender Stereotypes and Novelty. Other publications she has co-authored include Does Running with a Woman Help? Evidence from U.S. Gubernatorial Elections; Women in Executive Office: Variation Across American States; Gender Stereotyping in State Executive Elections: Candidate Selection and Success; and Philosopher Kings or Political Actors? How the Media Portray the Supreme Court.

Oxley holds a bachelor’s degree in government and legal studies from Bowdoin College, Brunswick, Maine, and a master’s degree and PhD in political science, the Ohio State University, Columbus.

JCCC’s scholar-in-residence program is designed to bring visiting scholars to students, faculty and the public. For more information about Oxley’s residency, contact Pat Decker, program facilitator, honors program, at ext. 2512, or pdecker5@jccc.edu.

Fort Hard Knox update:

Hello, everyone, and welcome to the new subscribers to this weekly newsletter!

This week’s edition is short and sweet for a couple of reasons. One, it’s April Fool’s Day, and many folks are hesitant to open e-mails today. Plus, I’m in the middle of starting a new business, and to say I have limited time this week is an understatement.

Speaking of April Fool’s Day, Google has done it again…this time, they’re offering Gmail Autopilot. That’s pretty funny.

Also, William Beutler, at Blog P.I. has an interesting post this week entitled Praciticing Politics in the Twitter Era + Using #TCOT vs. No Hashtags Whatsoever. In it, he talks about the right vs. the left movements online; it’s well worth a read - including the comments.

Have a good week!

Jenn (more…)

Thomas Mitchell:

Reading the 68-page transcript of this past week’s Supreme Court arguments over whether spending for promotion of “Hillary: The Movie” violated the McCain-Feingold Act was like watching 11 people debate whether the ship they are on should sink bow-first or stern-first. They kept arguing about whether the movie was covered by the scope of the law and only occasionally raised the question of whether the law itself violated the Constitution, specifically the First Amendment prohibition against government abridgement of free speech.

At the heart of the case is a 90-minute, limited-release movie created by Citizens United, which was largely critical of Hillary Clinton during her 2008 Democratic presidential primary bid. The Federal Election Commission ruled that, under McCain-Feingold, corporate money could not be spent to promote the movie on a video-on-demand cable channel.

You see, McCain-Feingold was passed by Congress — and fundamentally twice upheld by the Supreme Court, though it chipped away at some aspects — under the rotten rubric that the people are just too gosh darned gullible to be exposed to the corrupting influence of campaign messages financed by wealthy corporations and unions. (Wealthy political action committees and individuals are another matter.)