Certainties in Life: State of the Union Addresses & Taxes

President Obama delivers his sixth State of the Union Address this evening. The Constitution requires the President to present to Congress, from time to time, a message on the State of the Union. This has degenerated, like most things in American politics, into a media event that is, I think, unbecoming for a republic. Most galling, at least for me, is the display that members of Congress make as they shoulder their way to the aisle as the President strolls down. They look more like teenagers welcoming the newest boy band instead of a co-equal branch of government.

One other interesting fact is that one member of the President’s cabinet is absent from the ceremony in case disaster strikes. This one surviving member of the Executive branch of government would assume the presidency if needed. Generally, this person is given a government plane and travels somewhere of their own choosing during the proceedings, which guarantees they will be out of the area completely in case the catastrophe destroys all of D.C.

Here is a quick summary of what President Obama is expected to cover. Prominently featured, it seems, will be President Obama’s effort to increase taxes on the wealthiest Americans to provide benefits and tax reductions for the middle class. There is, effectively, a zero percent chance this will make it through a Republican controlled Congress. Politico brazenly refers to it as a ‘Robin Hood’ tax plan here.

Though it seems silly to complain of ‘politics’ in such things, I do wish the President and the G.O.P. would actually try to carve out a little common ground for the remainder of his term. I am not questioning the President’s belief in this plan, but he has to know that it is precisely the opposite of what might work with Republicans. So, instead of seeking something both parties might support, this offer is more incendiary than anything else. Yes, I am probably naive. I get it.

N.S.A. Hacks More Than Your Email. Hooray?

Slate, and nearly everyone else, has a write-up on the National Security Agency’s hacking of North Korea’s computer systems several years ago. This allowed the Obama Administration, it seems, to determine quickly that North Korea was responsible for the attacks against Sony’s computer network. The fact the agency managed this while simultaneously searching all domestic electronic communication is, indeed, laudable. Of course, I am not sure the N.S.A. is lacking in budgetary resources.

Ditka Would Not Encourage His Child to Play Football Now

Hall of Fame tight end, and Super Bowl winning coach of the Chicago Bears, Mike Ditka, declares that knowing what he does now, he could not encourage his child to play football. “I think the risk is worse than the reward. I really do,” Ditka says in an interview set to air today.

There is a real chance that football might cease to exist or, if it exists in the future, it will be in a very modified form. While it may seem counter-intuitive, it may be best for players to use less padding and even play without helmets. Alternatively, the University of New Hampshire teaches tackling without helmets so that athletes get used to protecting themselves as opposed to using their heads as a weapon in the process of tackling.

How to Remember Better? Use Flashcards (and More)!

Vox‘s Joseph Stromberg has a terrific piece on research by two psychologists at Washington University in St. Louis. Henry Roediger and Mark McDaniel have studied learning and memory for a combined eighty years. They are convinced that most students do not retain information because they too often study and review in the wrong ways.

Instead of simply re-reading assigned material and notes, the pair encourages students to vary their patterns and engage the required material in multiple ways. Making flashcards is one method they are high on because it conditions the mind to retrieve the information. They also encourage students to quiz themselves, and to seek to connect new material to material already known.

As a professor, the piece provokes some thought about instruction in the classroom. Primarily, the duo advises professors to revisit material several times throughout a period and not simply to treat material as a linear, one-time lesson. Bring up a topic, deal with it, add nuance or information to it later in a different context. I love the advice, and I think pulling it off would be quite manageable, but it would take some reconsideration of most syllabi, and that is not a bad thing necessarily.