It gets worse with the holidays. Thanksgiving means that an entire weeks worth of the bank’s post-foreclosure evictions got bumped to today. And all the banks want to get their evicting done before Christmas. So there’s an entire courthouse is packed to the gills with people believing they’ll be homeless in a few hours.
Or, rather, there’s the people who are worried they’re about to be homeless, the court staff, the attorneys doing the evicting, and a handful of us trying to keep people in their houses. It’s exhausting and exhilarating.
The legal system is violent thing. Navigating it without an attorney is difficult for most and impossible for many.
On the other hand, if you know what you’re doing, you can generally get things to work out okay. After today, quite a few more people will be home for the holidays.
It seemed like such a good idea, for the price—despite the creepiness of allowing Google to access everything. Unfortunately:
It’s only semi-functional when not connected to the internet. That wouldn’t be a problem … except that there’s a pretty heavy overlap between the times I want to use a Chromebook and the time the internet connection is imperfect.
When there is an Internet connection, the computer becomes marginally functional. It still can’t reliably handle basic word processing.1
Google has told me not to use the charger it came from—but to use a different USB charger that’s less likely to catch fire and/or explode.
Other USB chargers charge the computer more slowly than the batter runs down when it’s used.
Edit: Apparently converting a file from a .doc file to something that Google Docs can read is impossible. Or maybe it’s only impossible if it has footnotes. Nobody seems to really know. The point being do not, ever under any circumstances get a Chromebook if you want to anything remotely productive. “Oh. Google Docs can handle that.” Maybe it can. Or maybe it will screw you.
Google engineers: if you’re fixing this, my two main complaints are that the cursor routinely appears in the wrong place and that when trying to use Google Docs I can type substantially faster than the program can put words on the screen. ↩
This is the dumbest interpretation of the Pope’s comments that I have read today. It’s not anti-capitalism and it’s completely consistent with remarks previously made by Pope John Paull II and Pope Benedict XVI.
Catholic social doctrine has always supported that equitable distribution of goods is a priority. Naturally, profit is legitimate and, in just measure, necessary for economic development.
In his Encyclical Centesimus Annus, John Paul II wrote: “The modern business economy has positive aspects. Its basis is human freedom exercised in many other fields” (n. 32). Yet, he adds that capitalism must not be considered as the only valid model of economic organization (cf. ibid., n. 35).
Starvation and ecological emergencies stand to denounce, with increasing evidence, that the logic of profit, if it prevails, increases the disproportion between rich and poor and leads to a ruinous exploitation of the planet.
Instead, when the logic of sharing and solidarity prevails, it is possible to correct the course and direct it towards an equitable, sustainable development.
I don’t agree. While those themes are older than the Bible, they haven’t always seen this type of emphasis. While there has always been a vein of “Hey, maybe we should help people we exclude,” it’s sometimes been pretty faint.
I don’t know that I’d go as far as the Atlantic and call the language “anti-Capitalist.” But it draws a strong line against the live-and-let-die Tea Party stuff. It’s not a line or two here or there.
How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points? This is a case of exclusion. Can we continue to stand by when food is thrown away while people are starving? This is a case of inequality. Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless. As a consequence, masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape.
Then it keeps going.
Don’t get me wrong. The Pope isn’t some radical anti-capitalist. (And I can see a proper anti-capitalist being offended at the comparison.) But even when Benedict XVI was talking about the equitable distribution of goods, he’s talking about profit being an okay thing.
“The great danger in today’s world, pervaded as it is by consumerism, is the desolation and anguish born of a complacent yet covetous heart, the feverish pursuit of frivolous pleasures, and a blunted conscience.”—
Guys, look. I’m not a Catholic. I’m not going to become a Catholic. But I’m impressed.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear a pair of cases on whether corporations may refuse to provide insurance coverage for contraception to their workers based on the religious beliefs of the corporations’ owners.
The cases present a new challenge to President Obama’s health care law. The Supreme Court in 2012 upheld another part of the law, one that requires most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty.
The Obama administration has exempted many religious groups from the law’s requirements for contraception coverage. But it said for-profit corporations could not rely on religious objections to opt out of compliance with the law. The lower courts are divided over whether such corporations may object to generally applicable laws on religious liberty grounds.
Lower courts have been split on the subject so far, setting up the Supreme Court battle over whether or not the Affordable Care Act can require for-profit companies to provide their employees with insurance coverage for contraceptives. How do you see this ending?
This is not an easy one to call. There are four things in play.
Does free exercise of religion mean federal laws don’t apply to you? When it comes to smoking peyote, Scalia and Kennedy have said no where as the left wing of the court has said yes. (Except there has been a complete turnover in the left wing since then.) However, Alito has pretty aggressively said “no” in Blackhawk v. Pennsylvania before he was on the Supreme Court. (This is one of the best opinions ever because it’s about a religiously significant black bear who Pennsylvania wanted to decapitate.) So all else equal, we’d expect the left to stand up for religious freedom.
Except that corporations aren’t really people. I mean, maybe they sort of have speech rights. But religious rights for for-profit corporations? Isn’t that a step too far? So we’d expect the left to balk at this sort of expansion.
Of course, we’d also expect the left to stand up for womens’ health.
Then there’s the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. After Employment Division v. Smith, Congress got mad and passed this act to loosen the standard for religious exemptions to federal laws. It was unanimously upheld in a case involving mildly hallucinogenic tea. Roberts wrote the opinion.
“I prefer a Church which is bruised, hurting and dirty because it has been out on the streets, rather than a Church which is unhealthy from being confined and from clinging to its own security.”—Pope Francis
“On Wednesday, the new head of the White House Council of Economic Advisers released a bombshell report finding that U.S. health care spending since 2010 has increased by just 1.3 percent — the smallest cost growth over a three-year period in American history — while prices in the health care sector rose by 50-year lows, thanks in part to structural changes made by the Affordable Care Act.”—
This is a big deal. Website problems are an embarrassment that will last a month and a half. But bending the cost curve is absolutely critical for the future of medicine in the country.
This is more a “Thanks, in part, Obamacare” than an unambiguous “Thanks Obamacare.” There are a lot of different pressures contributing to this result—and some may not be permanent. However, people were pretty pessimistic about the Affordable Care Act’s probability of lowering costs. It looks like it’s happening.
The other goal—expanding coverage—is also happening. The website problems have complicated that. (Although … they’ve also brought a lot of publicity—so I’m not totally persuaded that fewer people will sing up than otherwise would have.)
“Agreement in Geneva: first step makes world safer. More work now. #IranTalks”—
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry (via statedept)
Uh … State Department? You know Tumblr doesn’t have a character limit. And that you can put your tag down in the tags box? It’s a lovely platform—and it could be used in a way that doesn’t make the Secretary of State sound like a caveman.
Edit: Yes, Anonymous, I’m aware that the source for the quote is Twitter. I like to pretend, however, that John Kerry probably said something more quotable in this whole negotiation than a Tweet.
I don’t particularly mind that a search engine tracks my search history. And I don’t particularly mind that an email provider scans emails for contextual advertising. And I certainly don’t mind that a social network keeps track of all the personal information I provide it. (After all, that’s the entire point of it.) I find it convenient when a web browser lets me save forms, passwords, and browsing history. Individually none of these things bother me.
Its a bit like how I don’t mind if somebody sees me leaving the house in the morning. I don’t mind if somebody sees me crossing the road on a walk to work. I don’t mind if somebody sees me go into the building or if somebody walking by my office sees that I’m there. I don’t mind if somebody knows what I ordered for lunch. Or that I brought a lunch from home on any particular day.
But … if you make all those people into the same person, it gets really uncomfortable really fast. It’s perfectly okay for any number of people to know any number of intimate things about you. But when you centralize all that disparate information into one central database, it becomes far more concerning. Google has been doing that aggressively the last few years.
It’s about time, right? If the Senate is an august and collegial body, allowing a de facto veto to substantial minority could encourage deliberation and consensus-building. If things are working, be very careful about making changes. Maybe the cost is that it takes a bit longer to fill some positions.
But things weren’t working. There was no consensus. There were just critical, unfilled positions. It was time to let the filibuster go.
I’m not a fan of Fareed Zakaria’s piece in the Washington Post about the percieved “mediocrity” of the federal government. Lifting up the federal government’s success in hiring disabled veterans as evidence that “merit and quality inevitably get downgraded in importance” is a mean business.
Are their long command chains from the top to the bottom? Of course. Is that true of any company with more than a few dozen employees? Of course. Does Zakaria think that the junior guy staffing the metal detector at a federal courthouse should have a direct line to the President? How about a Attorney General? Or the guy in charge of the Judicial Security Division across the country? Of course not. He reports to an immediate supervisor who knows the names of everybody under him. This is not bureaucracy run amok. It’s just plausible division of labor.
None of this is to say that there isn’t room to improve things. But it’s hardly fair to suggest that the federal government has a monopoly on imperfection. The private sector botches things all the time. (Why is Zakaria writing for the Washington Post? Wasn’t he a Newsweek guy?) Overall, the federal employees are extremely competent and good at what they do.
There’s a decent point buried in the article. It would help if Congresspeople paid more attention to getting things to work smoothly rather than digging about for politically advantageous garbage. But don’t trust Zakaria for a minute. He only seems to want to cut. It doesn’t seem to occur to him that many federal processes are slow and inefficient due to under-staffing.
JP Morgan Chase has finalized a $13,000,000,000.00 settlement with the Department of Justice for essentially defrauding investors about mortgages. There may also be criminal charges.
Speaking as a hardened criminal, the proper way to pay a settlement of that magnitude requires a briefcase full of crisp hundreds. It’s also helpful to have a decoy briefcase of roughly the same weight so you can pull a fast one at the last second.
So suppose you’re the Justice Department and Jamie Dimon comes up with a briefcase in either hand. Your sources tell you that one briefcase is full of hundreds and the other contains, say, a fully-grown blue whale. You can’t tell them apart—but one seems a smidge heavier than the other.
Q: Which is heavier, $13 billion in hundreds or a blue whale?
A: It depends how much the whale has eaten that day.
It seems reasonable that various economic conditions could cause this sort of crisis of homelessness. And it’s reasonable that other economic conditions could cause a glut of vacant homes. But when we see both at the same time, the train has gone off the tracks. Maybe it’s time to stop evicting people after foreclosure if they’re willing to pay some reasonable amount of rent.
When I tell this to the attorneys in charge of doing the evicting, they tell me to be reasonable. I’m afraid I no longer know how. When the world is stuck in a fun house mirror and the world is warped beyond recognition, it’s hard to draw a straight line.
“Embattled Mayor Rob Ford vowed “outright war” after Toronto’s City Council voted to strip him of most of his powers Monday in a tumultuous meeting during which a charging Ford knocked down one of its members.”—
So … Canadians. We sometimes tell jokes about you, your moose, and your socialized medicine. You might get the impression that we maybe don’t take you seriously. It’s sort of like we make jokes about the suburbs. I mean, sure, their schools function. But if they had to deal with the challenges we deal with, they wouldn’t be so smug.
Enter Rob Ford. I can’t really explain it. Except … I think Canada’s sick of our jokes. All that suppressed rage has found an avatar.
I just can’t help wondering whether delighting in high rates of uninsurance is going to be a viable political strategy long term.
They win elections when they cheers about poor people and children not having food and college students struggling to pay for education, all while defending to the death lower tax rates for the richest.
There will always be people willing to ignore the heartless contradictions of conservative politics, unfortunately.
But they don’t win those elections. Romney’s 47% remarks were toxic. The Republicans’ nomination of radically heartless candidates is costing them election after election. Even where the extremists have won, they have turned what could have been an easy romp to victory into a nail-biter.
“It’s sort of easy being against the ACA and rooting for its failure when you’re sitting in a job that’s giving you decent health insurance. I think that’s what bugs me the most. How people with insurance—with no skin in the game where their healthcare is concerned or the healthcare for their spouses and children—are wanting the ACA to go away. So that what? So that other people don’t have access to the same privilege you currently have?”—On Privilege and the Affordable Care Act (via azspot)
Every few years, it’s time to tweak the followed list as the people I was following quit drift away, quit the Internet, or find new jobs and become productive members of society.
So the carefully crafted followed list is getting kind of boring and unbalanced. I’m mostly interested in people with intelligent things to say about politics, even if I disagree with them. (Perhaps particularly if I disagree with them.) Who should I be following?
A call from the Hay-Adams hotel this past spring reporting that a Secret Service agent was trying to force his way into a woman’s room set in motion an internal investigation that has sent tremors through an agency still trying to restore its elite reputation.
The incident came a year after the agency was roiled by a prostitution scandal in Cartagena, Colombia, prompting vows from senior officials to curb a male-dominated culture of hard partying and other excesses.
The service named its first female director,Julia Pierson, seven months ago, and an extensive inspector general report on the agency’s culture launched in the wake of the Cartagena scandal is expected to be released in coming weeks.
One of the agents dismissed has been identified as Ignacio Zamora Jr., the man responsible for supervising the Secret Service unit that protects President Obama. Zamora has been accused of trying to reenter the hotel room of an unidentified female, after apparently forgetting a bullet from his service weapon. Both Zamora and fellow supervisor Timothy Barraclough are also accused of sending sexually suggestive emails to a female subordinate.
Maybe massive concentrations of hierarchical power are a bad idea for a species that regularly gives guns and security clearances to people who couldn’t figure out the basic rules about sexual harassment in the workplace.
After the 1988 closure of VW’s plant in southwestern Pennsylvania, Ron Dinsmore kept a grisly toll of the pain: the number of suicides of former workers. He stopped counting at 19. “I used to go to every funeral home,” said Dinsmore, 71. “I quit doing it. It got morbid.” Minimum of 19 suicides out of a 2500 person workforce. That’s a huge number. You saw the same thing in Oregon and Washington and northern California when the timber industry laid everyone off in the 1980s. I have one story in my research of a pastor in northern California who had to counsel a couple not to commit suicide, which they were considering because they couldn’t provide for their children and had an insurance policy that could. This is the cost of unemployment and factory closure.
Under conditions of extreme uncertainty, the way to progress is unstructured, trial-and-error experimentation
Society can therefore be seen as a game whose goal is the running of as many experiments as possible
4. Sometimes society learns something and can implement the results. 5. Sometimes we learn that some experiments work better than others. 6. Sometimes we have to make sure that the really important efforts have the funding they need.
The first problem with the roll out of the exchanges was that technical difficulties caused major difficulties in getting people to sign up. Particularly for the first month. And then not a whole lot of people signed up in the first month. So basically … the relatively low first-month enrollment tells us nothing we didn’t already know.
Except … if you read past that 106,000 number you learn that another 975,500 have created accounts, are eligible to sign up, and have not yet selected a plan. So the pre-launch goal was 500,000 sign-ups in October. The launch was a debacle. The first month saw a little over 20% of the target number of sign-ups. But the number of people who made it most of the way through and are most likely to come back once they’ve made some informed decisions is about 200% of the target number of sign-ups.
I’m just not buying the story that this number is a disappointment. At least, not a disappointment once you consider the previously known technical problems.
Watching the implementation of the Affordable Care Act from Massachusetts is a bit like being a grandparent. You can empathize with the travails of new parents. You’ve been through it. The result was good—and now it’s somebody else’s turn to do the hard part.
The uninsured rate in Massachusetts is the lowest in the country. And 80% of residents are satisfied with their health coverage. Yes, there are things to complain about. The quality of care is some of the best in the country. We have one of the lowest infant mortality rates and one of the highest life-expectancies.. All around, things are pretty good.
The changes mandated by the Affordable Care Act don’t require too much else from Massachusetts. The hard stuff happened years ago.
They all try to answer the implicit question. Why do the banks act like incompetent sociopaths? Why do they keep losing documents? Why do they keep lying to their customers? Why would the bank foreclose on a house worth less than nothing when the person living there really wants to pay them? Is anybody even in control?
The authors have this curious faith that there’s a comforting answer to these questions. They want there to be a single breaking point in the system. Perhaps if it could be fixed, the banks would just act in their self-interest. If the monstrously large entities entrusted with a distressingly high percentage of the economy behave in some predictable manner, perhaps we’re not all doomed. We can work with a competent sociopath.
I’m afraid the truth is not so encouraging. I’d compare the megabanks to the Frankenstein’s monster or Cylons—but neither is quite right. Any compelling plot requires that whatever monsters we create evolve toward greater humanity. Or even if it doesn’t, our monsters need to love us or hate us. In reality, the moment lightning strikes, all bets are off. Perhaps the best analogy is a cross between a wind-up toy and Trogdor the Burninator.
Remember that time Chesley Sullenberger landed an airplane in the Hudson rather than on a runway in North Carolina? And for some reason everybody was okay with it, even though a ton of people missed their connecting flights?
Nobody was upset about it, obviously, because the plane was going down anyway. Landing in the Hudson saved everybody on board.
There are some similarities to the Affordable Care Act. If you’ll recall, the state of healthcare in 2009 was not particularly glorious. Premiums were skyrocketing. Businesses were hiring fewer people, cutting hours, and cutting benefits. Insurers seemed to be looking for any excuse to deny claims.
Now all of that gets blamed on Obamacare. There have been and will continue to be plenty of things to criticize in the ACA and its implementation. Just remember that the ACA was passed because things were not going well with healthcare. The plane was going down.
Churches cannot throw political weight. They would lose their 501c3 status.
That’s not quite right. Churches cannot engage in “substantial lobbying activity.” (See this IRS guide). They also can’t participate in political campaigns for or against specific candidates. (Excluding mile-wide loopholes).
A statement like, “Write to your representative and ask them to pass the Medicaid expansion” is not going to constitute substantial lobbying activity. The church can also do whatever kind of educational efforts it wants to do. A church could, for example, discuss 1) why healthcare is important, 2) what’s contained in the proposed Medicaid expansion, and 3) what members can do to get involved politically. (As a matter of practice, I think this is a better way than just, “Go do this because I said so.”)
Of course, these rules apply to “the church” as an organizational entity. The church as a body of people isn’t going to have the same restrictions. While I’d agree that churches don’t, as a rule, want to get too entangled in politics, I think it’s appropriate to take a stand on certain issues.
Here’s the deal, conservative Christians. You’ve got your chance. Is the church going to care for the poor? Is private charity going to step up to the plate? You’ve got 25 states that rejected the Medicaid expansion. Here’s your chance to put up or…
I’m a Christian and I’d like to challenge the thought that the church is not currently working to care for the poor… The church DOES care for the poor. For example, Catholic Charities is #3 in terms of financial size in America according to Forbes. http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampbarrett/2012/11/08/the-largest-u-s-charities-for-2012/ Actually, the whole list is rather interesting- it looks like a majority of these 100 charities are religiously affiliated.
The reason many people have this belief that “Christians are hypocrites” is because, well… it’s true. We are. But have you ever met anyone who does exactly what they say they believe, regardless of religion?
Nobody is saying that Feeding America or Catholic Charities or any of the hundreds of other church-affiliated non-profits aren’t doing good and important work. Feeding America is throwing its political weight behind what it believes. Why aren’t the Southern megachurches? They have the political weight to get these problems solved. Why sit on the sidelines?
Are the pastors afraid to stand up to their politicians? Are they worried the crowd will turn against them? Deal with it. Shoulder a cross or something. At some point, shouldn’t we at least aspire to live out what we believe? Can we put some of this transformative power into action? Live it out a bit?
"Everybody’s a hypocrite" is a cop-out. Everybody’s weak. Everybody fails. Everybody lets themselves down. We’ve all got regrets. We haven’t lived up to our expectations of ourselves. All this is inevitable. Willful hypocrisy is not. Not every swing is a home run. Strike-out swinging if you have to. But at least step up to the plate.
Either push for the Medicaid expansion or come up with a better plan. Remaining silent on basic medical care for the most vulnerable compromises whatever moral authority the church affects.
Here’s the deal, conservative Christians. You’ve got your chance. Is the church going to care for the poor? Is private charity going to step up to the plate? You’ve got 25 states that rejected the Medicaid expansion. Here’s your chance to put up or shut up.
Can the church step up an take care of the needs of the poor and uninsured? Or let’s set the bar even lower. Can the private charities in one single state step up to the plate enough that the previous question can be asked without bitter sarcasm?
“I tried to imagine a scenario where I urged people to write our governor encouraging him to reconsider his decision regarding the expansion of Medicaid for the poor. As I imagined that, I got the feeling that by the time I finished explaining the issue, people’s eyes would be glazed over.”—
Andy Stanley, mega church pastor. I’ve wondered how such a large number of the Bible-belt pastors can justify standing on the sidelines as their states refuse to extend medical coverage to millions of the most vulnerable. Apparently the answer for Mr. Stanley is that his flock has a really short attention span.
(I don’t mind skepticism of “big government solutions.” But I think rejecting the Medicaid expansion at the expense of those less fortunate than you gives you an obligation to come up with a credible solution of your own.)
To their credit, the Libertarians have been extraordinarily vocal in the prison industrial complex issue. Liberty, after all, is hardly consistent with locking up 1% of society. But I worry that their solution to the problem is incomplete.
Don’t lock people up for stupid things like minor drug offenses. Correlary: decriminalize things that shouldn’t be crimes, eliminate mandatory minimum sentences, and generally try to be less of a police state.
Stop doing constitutionally dubious searches. And while your at it, maybe stop militarizing local police forces. And see if they can be a bit less racist. See also “be less of a police state.”
As partial solutions go, these are both fine. I think the disconnect comes with the question of how to address things like theft, embezzlement, and burglary, and other crimes that Libertarians don’t like. I’m not talking about the massive-scale, shock-the-nation crimes. I mean the crime blotter stuff. I mean the geographically-concentrated crimes we connect with concentrated populations in high poverty.
Sequestration may going to cause the elimination of 185,000. That’s 185,000 families who could have reasonably stable housing that will suddenly be out of luck. With an average household size of about 2.5, 185,000 families is roughly the entire population of Wyoming. Some may be able to find housing elsewhere—but they’ll bump somebody else. The shelters are full. Sequestration is going to create a lot of really desperate people.
Connecting these dots isn’t nearly as simple as saying that crime is something ignorant like poor people routinely commit crime because they are desperate. There are a few more dots to connect. A loss of vouchers causes displacement. Displacement destabilizes communities. Etc. The bottom line is that stable housing, a stable job, and reasonably stable finances can make you the kind of boring person that doesn’t live a life of crime.
All the glorious benefits of a free market require broad participation in the market. That means people need sufficient resources to be full participants. Doesn’t a desire for a flourishing fee market require ensuring as many people as possible can participate? I get that subsidies cause market distortion. But doesn’t homelessness and extreme poverty cause a greater distortion? Bonnie? Jeff?
This is just more evidence that the Obama of the Obama administration’s failure to adequately explain what happened. Is his name Morgan Jones and Dave Davies? How did the story happen to different ways? Is he a liar with a political agenda or a liar with a profit agenda? Did somebody at teh State Department get to CBS? I think we need another hearing on this.
To nobody’s surprise, Chris Christie won a New Jersey gubernatorial election by a lot. Christie’s acceptance speach emphasized bipartisanship. A lot of people think this is a preparation for a 2016 Presidential run.
Terry McAuliffe won a Virginia gubernatorial election by a nose. The main surprise was 1) it was really close, and 2) a Libertarian won a whopping 7% of the votes.
Bradley Bryne defeated Dan Young in the Republican primary runoff for a congressional seat from Alabama’s 1st District. Or, for most of us, a person we’ve never heard of beat another person we’ve never heard of in a congressional district we don’t care about. But this is actually interesting because it’s one where a more moderate Republican took on a tea party guy with support from big business.
There are a few lessons to take from this. One might be that the healthcare.gov debacle isn’t helping democrats. I think people will largely have forgotten that by 2014—but maybe it’s a liability. I don’t really know.
The more important lesson is that the shutdown seems to be helping moderate Republicans. Which means that some of the extremists could have a rough time in primaries. Which means that the Republicans might have some actually electable candidates. In other words, the Democrats may not be able to run against a party of clowns in 2014.
“Mr. Paul has been a prolific op-ed writer in recent years, penning hundreds of pieces in The Times and other media outlets. But the body of his work is getting fresh attention from journalists as they uncover multiple cases of lifting other people’s work without giving them credit.”—
Jim McElhatton of The Washington Times • From the announcement that Rand Paul’s column, in conservative D.C. newspaper The Washington Times, is being cancelled amid widening plagiarism allegations against the Kentucky Senator. As we mentioned earlier today, Paul’s damage control strategy started to change, from duel threat to adviser-issued pseudo-admission. source (via shortformblog)”
So … oops. Right? Editorials written by Rand Paul aren’t actually written by Paul. Not just in the sense that they’re plagiarized. But in the sense that it’s probably a staffer actually writing them. Or, at a minimum, the staffer is doing extensive research assistance.
What probably happens is that a staffer does some research, lifts a bunch of text, and essentially presents Paul with a bunch of information cut and pasted from all over. Maybe Paul plagiarizes his research assistant (which is mostly okay), not realizing that the material was actually from somewhere else. It’s a really, really basic mistake—and one that both Paul and the staffer could have avoided.
I’m looking for first-time parents whose child is 18 months or younger and who have a Facebook page to participate in a study of their Facebook use. The study will consist of an email-based interview and an analysis of their Facebook posts (all confidential - no identifying information, pictures, or screenshots will be included in the study).
I’m an undergraduate student in Sociology and Psychology, and I’m doing my Senior capstone project on parents’ use of social media.
If you’re interested or have any questions, please message me or send me an email at yorglow(at)gmail(dot)com. If you’re not interested but have followers who might be, please signal boost!
Here’s the deal:
You’re allowed to post pictures of your children doing adorable things on Halloween. I’m allowed to tell you to turn your children over to the trusty hands of our nations aspiring scientists so they can be experimented on. Or studied. Unless you hate science.
Or maybe it’s you she’s studying. “Why do people with kids post their kids pictures all over Facebook?” It’s not too late for you. Perhaps she’ll find a cure!
Also, in the name of science, AbbyJean is doing her own survey.