“A professor at Miami Dade College and co-author of the textbook The Freedom to Communicate is accusing a colleague and fellow author of plagiarizing portions of the book, the Miami Herald reports. What makes this plagiarism spat distinctive amid the recent spate of high-profile cases is the allegation that Adam Vellone, a communications professor, plagiarized the definition of plagiarism in the textbook, lifting it nearly word for word from Turnitin, a plagiarism-detection website.”—
Well, if you’re going to plagiarize something, the definition of plagiarize is a good place to start.
For that matter, if you want to teach people how NOT to plagiarize something, the definition of plagiarism is a good place to start.
re: poor choices And not a word about any “poor choices” made by citizens? It’s all on the cops, right? Well, at least one cop in particular, yeah. But let’s get real here, prof. Riots are the result of multiple variables - on both sides of the fracas.
So there are root causes AND proximate causes for social and political events. Huh. Including the shooting of an unarmed for no good reason? Which then inflamed deeply formed root causes that were latent until the shooting?
I've been following the situation in Ferguson as closely as possible. It is shocking. I've been wondering: where are all the anti-government pro-gun-rights people? For years, they've been predicting oppression of citizens through police militarization, and now that it's actually happening, they seem silent. Is this straight-up racism? Is this because it's not the federal government (e.g. Obama) being oppressive? Is this because the police aren't coming after them personally?
I’ve been thinking about what I want to say on this topic all day; it’s been discussed to comedic effect on Facebook and Twitter, amongst the people with whom I share similar feelings about the gun rights insurrectionists.
Clearly I don’t want to suggest that the insurrectionists or the open-carry activists are right, that the amassing of private handgun arsenals in order to scare off the police or walking around with guns to show everyone you’ve got ‘em are things that make any kind of sense. It’s not hard to imagine that the situation in Ferguson this week would have been about a million times worse if the protesters had been armed. Considering that this whole thing began with the shooting of an unarmed black kid, a whole bunch of armed black people facing the militarized St. Louis area police would have been a disaster of epic proportions.
A whole bunch of armed white people? Well, my friend Kim Yi Dionne happens to have a piece up at the Monkey Cage that addresses precisely this question using political science research:
… when compared with other groups, African American protesters are more likely to draw police presence and that once police are present they are more likely to make arrests, use force and violence, and use force and violence in combination with arrests at African American protest events.
So maybe those armed insurrectionists would have been just fine if they’d turned up in Ferguson this week. The police might have spoken with them and attempted to calm the whole situation down rather than escalating things by attempting to intimidate and silence them. And that would have thrown a whole wrench in their theory about government tyranny.
He didn't "steal" he committed strong armed robbery. The clerk looks scared for his life. Cut the bullshit and quit sugar coating things. You don't know what happened. You guys got the name of the shooter wrong yesterday which puts innocent peoples lives at risk. Just shut up.
A few thoughts, dear brave anonymous:
—If I don’t know what happened, neither do you — unless you were there. But let’s say you’re right, and it was armed robbery. Guess what?
We don’t execute people in the United States for armed robbery.
And we don’t let the police summarily execute ANYONE for ANYTHING.
—I did not release the alleged name of the shooter yesterday. In fact, it seems more likely YOU did, since the group “Anonymous” claimed to have discovered it, apparently wrongly.
My name is available. Why isn’t yours since you’re so sure you’re right?
This is America. Or at least it’s supposed to be. We have rights. They can be violated, even legally sometimes, but they exist nonetheless.
The heart of the Bill of Rights is a series of amendments describing the rights of accused persons and/or suspects. The 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th (defunct), and 8th amendments ALL deal with the rights of citizens in criminal matters. So of the 10 amendments hailed as the “Bill of Rights,” HALF were about the rights of citizens when they are suspected of a crime or other nefarious activity.
It’s not hard to understand why. The government, after all, runs the prisons. And the prosecutors. And the police. It has vast resources to turn against you if it decides it wants to prosecute you — or persecute you (something the Framers definitely feared). You meanwhile, will have … whatever resources you have when proceedings against you start: personal wealth (if you have any, and assuming it hasn’t been seized by the State as well). An attorney (of varying quality). Umm … ? Anything else?
So the Bill of Rights is intended to partially rebalance the scales in favor of citizens and against the State.
So what the effing eff are you doing, Ferguson? You have taken the Framers’ fears and multiplied them beyond imagination. In place of muskets you have SWAT. In place of horses you have armored vehicles. Arrayed against citizens exercising their rights, which you seem hell bent onviolating.
As regular readers of this blog will know, I am sympathetic to police. I did research with police. I have spent over 100 nights of my life riding with police officers. I have been to riots, had beer bottles chunked at me at 2 am, have been left in a housing project in the middle of the night, and watched a 17 year old die after a car accident. (Seatbelts save lives, people.) I can tell you what a burned body smells like. (You don’t want to know.) And much, much more. I recognize many of the contradictions and struggles of the job from a “been there done that” perspective.
All of which leads me to ask: Ferguson … what the eff?
Part of the conservative critique of higher education is that liberal professors indoctrinate students, turning middle-of-the-road students into Young Democrats (or Young Socialists).
But a new study suggests that it’s time to stop blaming professors (of any political leaning) for any leftward tilt that college students may show (and the study acknowledges that many do lean that way over the course of their college years).
The influence is coming from students themselves. In fact, the study says, the more engaged students are with faculty members and academics, the more their views moderate toward the center. But the more students become engaged in student activities, the more the liberals become more committed as liberals and conservatives become more committed as conservatives.
Politicalprof: damn. And here I thought I had their absolute, rapt attention as I worked my mojo on them. Now it looks there’s cross-mojination and whatnot and … (Head explodes).
The brilliance of the slogan, "Don't shoot! My hands are up!"
The shooting of unarmed black man Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri has set off a storm of protests and anger at the apparently unjustified shooting.
While some of these protests appear to have turned violent, unfortunately, one dimension of the protests is brilliant: the phenomenon of people confronting the police with their arms raised, shouting “don’t shoot.”
See, what’s going on here is the delegitimization of the police department. Private citizens, who, after all, police departments are supposed to “protect and serve,” are effectively declaring themselves alienated from “their” police. The police, the implication, are occupiers, not facilitators of security and freedom.
What makes this tactic particularly brilliant derives from the self-images of police officers themselves. While I know it is popular to mock police among progressives here on Tumblr, this is a mistake. Police officers themselves see themselves as doing a tough job (it is) under tough conditions (they are) for the good of the community (this, of course, is the dispute). When citizens address cops not with nods but with arms raised and pleas to “don’t shoot,” they are undermining this sense of duty on the police officer’s part. Most police do not see themselves as occupiers of hostile territory. They do not want to see themselves as randomly shooting civilians.
The brilliance of “Don’t shoot my hands are up” is that it forces the Ferguson police to ask just why the citizens they are sworn to protect are afraid of them.
Keep it up, people of Ferguson. You’re onto something.
Like most people my age, my first experiences with Robin Williams were on Happy Days, and then Mork — his turn as the manic, human-loving alien interpreting earth culture for his home people. I then watched all that energy explode on screen — sometimes amazingly, sometimes baffle-ingly, sometimes uncomfortably — across the length of his amazing career. It’s really hard to imagine we won’t ever see a new version of his talent again.
I don’t know what demons lived inside Robin Williams’ head: one hears lots of things, but one always does.
As a person who was in an intimate relationship with someone who suffered from bipolar disorder, I did have some experiences with demons, however. Here’s what I learned:
—to those who are struggling with the demons: no, I don’t understand. No, I can’t understand. Just try to know that doesn’t mean I don’t care, or can’t try. May the fact that I want to try shine a light in places you didn’t think there could be light offer some help to you in your struggles. That is my hope.
—to those dealing with those with demons: trust me. It’s not your fault. It’s nothing you did, and there’s nothing you can do. Don’t get lost in their pain. You have to care for you, too.
Why guns? Yes, because freedom. That you don’t value that above mere survival is a moral failing of yours, but correct analysis. Because crime and death rates aren’t the issue. Because bearing the weighty power of life and death yourself rather than alienating it to public “servants”, and going down fighting rather than cowering in fear, are more befitting the honor of a free man. Because freedom.
“I teach you the overman. Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him?
"All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is the ape to man? A laughingstock or a painful embarrassment. And man shall be just that for the overman: a laughingstock or a painful embarrassment. You have made your way from worm to man, and much in you is still worm. Once you were apes, and even now, too, man is more ape than any ape.
"Whoever is the wisest among you is also a mere conflict and cross between plant and ghost. But do I bid you become ghosts or plants?
"Behold, I teach you the overman! The overman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the overman shall be the meaning of the earth! I beseech you, my brothers, remain faithful to the earth, and do not believe those who speak to you of otherworldly hopes! Poison-mixers are they, whether they know it or not. Despisers of life are they, decaying and poisoned themselves, of whom the earth is weary: so let them go!”
In response to my posts about the shooting of John Crawford in an Ohio Wal*Mart a few days ago, a couple of people have commented about the themes of racism, open carry, and the police. So I offer this brief clarification:
If you see someone carrying a rifle in a store, call the police by…
For viewers of the Israeli media, Hamas is the incarnation of evil. We are fighting “terrorists”. We are bombing “terror targets” (like the home of the family of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh). Hamas fighters never withdraw, they “escape”. Their leaders are not commanding from underground command posts, they are “hiding”. They are storing their arms in mosques, schools and hospitals (as we did during British times). Tunnels are “terror tunnels”. Hamas is cynically using the civilian population as “human shields” (as Winston Churchill used the London population). Gaza schools and hospitals are not hit by Israeli bombs, God forbid, but by Hamas rockets (which mysteriously lose their way) and so on.
Seen through Arab eyes, things look somewhat different. Hamas is a patriotic group, fighting with incredible courage against immense odds. They are not a foreign force oblivious to the suffering of the population, they are the sons of this very population, members of the families that are now being killed en masse, who grew up in the houses that are now being destroyed. It is their mothers and siblings who huddle now in UN shelters, without water and electricity, deprived of everything but the clothes on their back.
“Kansas City, this was Air Force One. Will you change our call sign to SAM 27000?”—
Colonel Ralph Albertazzie, pilot of Air Force One, over Jefferson City, Missouri at 12:00 pm, August 9, 1974. Air Force One had left Andrews Air Force Base with President Richard Nixon that morning; when his resignation took effect at noon on August 9, the plane could no longer be called Air Force One, and reverted to its tail number.
Good Morning Professor, that wrench on your front page is a “Hex” wrench. “Allan” is a brand name of a certain hex wrench.
Pedantry is never well-received, especially when it just took me 45 minutes to attach 16 screws and I still haven’t gotten them tight. Xerox is a brand but people talk about xeroxing all the time. I imagine you’ll survive.
One of the things we university faculty hear from “the public” is how great it must be to get our summers “off.” Hmm. “Off.” For lazy rounds of golf, I assume, or strolls through fields of clover in our bare feetsies. Or, not.
As of today, I completed my NINTH major academic project. I have two more to go, but they’re much smaller:
1. I drafted an article on globalization, American popular culture, and yes: Star Trek.
2. I drafted an application for a Fulbright.
3. I drafted an article on “political culture” for a forthcoming political encyclopedia.
4. I drafted a sabbatical request.
5. I drafted the undergraduate program review, a massive report that has to go to the University and the State of Illinois that serves as a summary/statement of what our program is doing, how well it is doing it, and how we are trying to get better. This entailed several hundred hours work.
6. I drafted the graduate program review, which does the same thing for the graduate program. It entailed less hours of work because SOME of it was duplicate of the undergraduate report.
7. I reviewed an article for potential publication in a journal. I liked the idea, but not the article, which makes writing the report hard.
8. I drafted the 2013-14 undergraduate assessment report, which is a piece of program review and will be relevant the next time program review happens, in 8 years. This took about 50 hours of work overall.
9. I drafted the 2013-14 graduate assessment report, which is the same thing for the graduate program, but there is little duplication of effort, so it takes its own time.
I still have another journal review to do, assessing if an article is ready for publication. I also have to prepare for a retreat in two weeks in which I get to lead a discussion about? My two program review reports. Which will then be subject to redrafting.
Oh and there was some family and fun stuff in there too.
So sure: I enjoyed my summer “off.” Thanks for understanding when I swallow a snort when you bring it up ….
March 30, however, marks an anniversary I would just as soon forget, but cannot.
It was on that day 10 years ago that a deranged young man standing among reporters and photographers shot a policeman, a Secret Service agent, my press secretary and me on a Washington sidewalk. …
Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics. This does not include suicides or the tens of thousands of robberies, rapes and assaults committed with handguns.
This level of violence must be stopped.
Ronald Reagan, announcing his support for the handgun control bill known as the Brady Bill, in 1991 … and proving again that he was way too moderate for the current Tea Party Republicans who claim him as their founding saint.
So one of the things that makes “us” us is that it’s really hard to turn the professor/editor/critic parts of our brains off as we go about our daily lives. To wit:
There is an “expo” for senior citizens going on at my university today … sponsored, I kid you not, by a local funeral home. One of the displays was focused on gardening, obviously a favorite pastime for many seniors.
Except it wasn’t. The sign said “Gardners.” Which means it was only for people named “Gardner.” Even though it wasn’t.
Ohh, my editorial pen burned. Classes must be coming soon!
A) The inability to think beyond the immediate news cycle — eg., claiming that we have to sue the president for all his unilateral actions helps us win THIS news cycle. Tomorrow, claiming the president must act unilaterally to solve a crisis or he is a failure will help us win THAT news cycle.
Let’s say you’re a nice Jewish boy and you’re thinking about writing a post for your Times of Israel blog in which you argue in favor of committing genocide. Let’s say you actually go so far as to title your post “When Genocide is Permissible” and you write this paragraph:
History is there to teach us lessons and the lesson here is that when your enemy swears to destroy you – you take him seriously. Hamas has stated forthrightly that it idealizes death as much as Israel celebrates life. What other way then is there to deal with an enemy of this nature other than obliterate them completely?
And let’s say you end your post with a long paragraph that just sweetly and innocently poses a question to “humanitarians” about whether or not it might actually be acceptable for Israel to commit genocide because, after all, it’s “the responsibility of every government to ensure the safety and security of its people” and so “political leaders and military experts [might] determine that the only way to achieve its goal of sustaining quiet is through genocide.”
If you did all of that, my recommendation is to immediately call your internet service provider and ask them to turn off your internet connection for a few weeks. Otherwise, like Yochanan Gordon, you might publish a blog post suggesting that genocide might sometimes be permissible. And then, even though the Times of Israelcalls your post “damnable and ignorant,” takes it down from their website, and discontinues your blog entirely, people all over the world will see it and you’ll probably want to legally change your name and go into hiding for a few years.
Because if you don’t just turn off your internet connection and you publish a this blog post you’re thinking about writing, you’re going to be that nice Jewish boy who said genocide is sometimes acceptable. And leaving aside the way the public at large thinks about you, I can’t imagine what your family thinks.
Politicalprof: from the “what were you thinking?” file —
This person explains to me that rising gun ownership is actually making Detroit, my hometown, much safer:
Just look at Detroit recently gun ownership has gone up and crime has gone down. Not just a theory when there is evidence people
He’s right, you know. The violent crime rate in Detroit declined last year. And I guess it’s possible that gun ownership was responsible. Or perhaps there are a whole host of variables to consider, including the dramatic population decline.
Make no mistake: Detroit is still a very dangerous place. The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s crime database reports Detroit had 386 murders last year, up from 344 in 2011 and essentially unchanged from 2000 – when the city had 200,000 more residents. The steady outflow of residents has driven Detroit’s murder rate up to 54.6 per 100,000, more than 10 times the national average and the highest in the country among large cities. Equally troubled Stockton, Calif., fifth on this year’s Most Dangerous list, has less than half the murder rate of Detroit….
The violent crime rate for the Detroit MSA [metropolitan statistical area] is 574 per 100,000 population, 48% higher than the national average — and virtually all attributable to the area’s much more dangerous urban core. Only a handful of murders in the Detroit MSA were reported outside of Detroit itself.
Maybe Detroit just needs even more guns?
But even if this is true in Detroit, it does not “prove” that more guns equals less crime. Arguing from an anecdote (N=1) is very problematic, precisely because other factors could be the cause of the decline in crime.
In order to have confidence that “more guns equals less crime,” we would have to see one of two (or both) kinds of studies:
Studies of Detroit (or some other area) over a long period of time to see if the rate of gun ownership correlates with the crime rate (that is, whether the two rates go up/down together). This would be “time-series” data.
Studies of the relationship between crime and gun ownership for a large number of cases. This would be “cross-sectional” data.
You could also combine both types of studies (large number of cases over a long period of time). This would be “panel” data.
Politicalprof: WARNING! WARNING! Social science in progress.
The States were not “Sovereigns” in the sense contended for by some. They did not possess the peculiar features of Sovereignty, they could not make war, nor peace, nor alliances nor treaties. Considering them as political Beings, they were dumb, for they could not speak to any foreign Sovereign whatever. They were deaf, for they could not hear any propositions from such Sovereign. They had not even the organs or faculties of defence or offence, for they could not of themselves raise troops, or equip vessels, for war. On the other side, if the Union of the States comprizes the idea of a confederation, it comprizes that also of consolidation. A Union of the States is a Union of the men composing them, from whence a national character results to the whole. Congress can act alone without the States - they can act & their acts will be binding against the Instructions of the States. If they declare war: war is de jure declared - captures made in pursuance of it are lawful - No acts of the States can vary the situation, or prevent the judicial consequences. If the States therefore retained some portion of their sovereignty, they had certainly divested themselves of essential portions of it.
Rufus King, as recorded in James Madison notes of the Constitutional Convention, June 19, 1787
Politicalprof: But hey? What would they know? They just wrote the durn thing.