On top of it, this guy was not arrested for "throwing spaghetti" or assaulting a police officer. It's clear this arrest was politically motivated, and I'm sure there will be many more such arrests before this is over.
Bush's administration did appoint "anybody but Saddam" to lead Iraq, and he certainly laid the groundwork by removing Saddam and creating a power vacuum in the first place.
Heh. I wonder why this is all about "embarrassment" for you? In any case, I'll back off the NRO comment; it was made originally as an attempt to poke fun, not really a serious argument; an ad hominem even. You're right - I shouldn't make assumptions based on what magazine you read (hell, I read NRO too), even though your posts confirm those assumptions.
But I just think you're missing the point of the main argument here. The term has a murderous history. It was a term used to identify numbers of indians murdered under the British policy of exterminating the populace. You have not even tried to refute this; you simply say that most Indians today aren't offended by it and that the team would not base its name on a slur. The first point misses the historical argument entirely -- even if nobody were offended by the term, its historical roots cannot be denied. It is possible that a term can change its meaning significantly over time, of course; but while that is true to a certain extent of the term "redskin," the fact that some 20% of native Americans still find the term offensive suggests that those historical meanings are still a part of the contemporary understanding. Is a term only a racial slur if 50% of a population is offended by it? 75%? Why do you insist I am just talking about "offensiveness" anyway? My point is about the history of the term.
Again, it wouldn't surprise me if many people -- including 80% of native Americans studies by SI -- were ignorant of this history of the term. Most Americans are ignorant of most of American history. But that doesn't make it false! You can't just cite a poll to dispute historical facts; what if 80% of native Americans didn't believe in World War II. Would you use that as evidence that World War II was a hoax?
Finally, I don't completely disagree with your point about trivializing more important issues. I am not an activist on this issue, and I think there are many more significant problems for native Americans today than the names of football teams. But that doesn't change the historical facts, which I don't think you can ignore. And I think it is worse than ignoring it when you assert with such certainty that the historical fact is false, when your only evidence is an opinion poll.
That is true in one federal court decision that is likely to be overturned if the question is considered at the supreme court. Fair use includes using the work for educational, journalistic, and similar purposes. The parody/satire distinction was created in a federal court decision to clarify that the person using a work "fairly" must have a good reason to be using that particular work and not another work; in other words that the expression must be integrally related to the use of a particular work. It makes more sense that way but even then I would argue it is specious because the first amendment and the fair use clause protect an artist's right to make a point -- not the artist's right to make a point in the most effective or cleverest manner possible. It seems to me ludicrous (and I expect the Supreme Court would agree if they ever hear this question) that an artist's right to make fun of other artists deserves greater protection than an artist's right to make a political point.
First, I wasn't criticizing the National Review; I was criticizing you. I realize SI did the poll but you obviously didn't read it there. My point was that if that's where you generally get your news that you wave around as if taking the pulse of Native America, that might tell us other things about your ability to follow a nuanced argument (which your post above confirms).
Second, I am not disputing the poll (though I have seen others); I am making the point that this term has a history of being a racial slur. If your poll is accurate, some 20% of native Americans find the term offensive; hardly an insignificant number. But even if the number were smaller, it is still pretty obviously a slur based on its historical usage, which you do not dispute. I don't know why the team would call itself a slur, other than that they, like you, thought the term was innocent of negative connotations. In other words, they made an unfortunate mistake.
The particular history of this term is not merely offensive; it is murderous. So the 20% who object to it probably object to it quite significantly, with reasonable historical basis for their objections. The fact that 80% are blind to that history is irrelevant; most Americans, native or not, are relatively ignorant of American history.
Third, I don't "wish to portray" this term as a slur; it is pretty clear from its use historically what it meant and why it is considered a slur by many. I'm also not saying that the use of the term should be banned as a mascot. That's up to the team. But if it were my team, and I realized that we had unintentionally chosen a racial slur that was offensive to 20% of the population, I would probably change it just to show good will. But maybe that's just me.
This is an opinion poll. It's hardly responsive to the historical question of the origin of the term "redskin." Whether or not only 1 in 5 are actually offended by it, the origin of the term clearly suggests what one cannot but call a "racial slur." It's an open question whether the 4 out of 5 would agree if presented with that history. But it's also irrelevant to whether the term is a slur. (But of course I don't really expect anyone who cites National Review as the sole source for anything to catch such nuances).
This link suggests otherwise. And this discussion refers to a different court case that clearly supports the notion of "redskin" as a derogatory term referring to the scalps of Indian victims. And in the Kotelly case you mention, the judge plainly states that her ruling is not a ruling on whether the term is offensive to Indians in general or not. Whether or not Dietz put paint on his face, it's pretty clear that this term is widely considered an insult based on the history cited in these links.
That is absurd. "Redskin" may only make sense to 1% (though it is likely more), but if most of those are native Americans, they know they are being slurred. How can you say it is not an ethnic slur??
I don't think so. They are making money off of providing an educational service, and those papers facilitate that service. I suppose it's arguable either way. I never supported the idea that copy centers couldn't make a reasonable sum selling course readers which are clearly within fair use bounds; I would think this case is even more clear since the papers as stored in the database are not actually being read or accessed as copyrighted material. But in any case, none of this applies if the paper is plagiarized:)
I also teach at a large public institution, and I don't think the cheating is that bad either. It is much worse at the more prestigious research universities. I once had a rash of cheating -- this was blatant plagiarism from websites -- from U Michigan students at a summer course I taught. I got to talk with a few of them after they were caught and they said that it was simply rampant where they went to school and that teachers there never catch them cheating. I can say at my university it happens a lot but there are a lot more professors trying to catch it, and the most blatant and stupid stuff, like copying websites verbatim, is usually caught. Funny thing was most of the students I talked to about it saw cheating as a legitimate way of getting ahead, and some even said the risk was worth it and they would do it again in the same situation -- this is after getting caught! Somewhere along the line they are learning values that suggest that cheating can be a worthwhile risk to take in order to move forward.
If the paper is plagiarized, the student doesn't really own the copyright. As far as the teacher is concerned, if the paper is legit, this is clearly "fair use" from the perspective of education; in fact, it's use is only educational in this database, since it's not actually being distributed to (or read by) anyone and is only being used to further a legitimate educational purpose. So, in short, the answer is no.
Re:I write term papers for people
on
Cheating Made Easy
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Do your papers come with a disclaimer "for research only"? If so, are you willing to make them available to professors in a database that can be searched to catch students who are cheating by using them?
I had one student copy an essay directly off a website that was a plagiarism website, and the paper was one of their free samples. So it showed up in google, and he was instantly caught. I probably catch about 5-10 students a year plagiarizing off the web to varying degrees, but this was the most blatant I've seen. I don't know how many students are willing to pay for this sort of service but when someone's writing is mediocre at best on other assignments and suddenly is flawless for a paper on a topic they seem otherwise clueless about, the alarm bells start to go off.
The really sad thing is the number of students who try to justify cheating, even after they've been caught.
I've got a better idea. How about running around the net doing some fucking research instead of "picking up term papers." How about reading some essays, articles on the topic from legitimate published sources (not some loser whose idea of a good thing to do with his college degree is run a half-ass cheating website) and learning about it for a change? Then instead of "stitching together a term paper" and editing it "in your own personal style," how about putting together the research you've gathered in your own style to make a point that is uniquely yours? It's really not that different, and chances are, it won't take you that much longer than cheating in the way you suggest, and there's zero chance of getting caught since you won't be fucking cheating!!! (There's a Simpsons episode where Bart actually studies for an exam and when he does well he's convinced it's a whole new way to cheat).
Good idea; I may use that. The thing is, where I work (large state university), most of the students who cheat just copy their shit right off the web and it's that easy to find. 10 seconds in google and your college career is over. You really think it's worth the risk? Well, for at least 5-10 students per year (out of the 300 or so that pass through my courses in a year), the answer is apparently yes, and that's just the ones I've actually caught. I suppose all cheaters can't be that stupid but so many of them are that proposals like the above are beside the point.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, wait a second. Isn't that precisely what they are supposed to do?
Reminds me of the best bumper sticker I saw being hawked at the 2000 Democratic convention -- "Lick Bush, Scratch Dick."
On top of it, this guy was not arrested for "throwing spaghetti" or assaulting a police officer. It's clear this arrest was politically motivated, and I'm sure there will be many more such arrests before this is over.
Bush's administration did appoint "anybody but Saddam" to lead Iraq, and he certainly laid the groundwork by removing Saddam and creating a power vacuum in the first place.
Yeah, not only is the Google Office Suite better and more stable than MS Office; the GoogleOS is finally ready for prime time.
it may not be too early to pronounce Battlefield Earth the worst movie of the century.
Imagine eating a hamburger cooked on said cluster.
In fact, I have millions of them! Pentabyte = 5 bytes, right?
But I just think you're missing the point of the main argument here. The term has a murderous history. It was a term used to identify numbers of indians murdered under the British policy of exterminating the populace. You have not even tried to refute this; you simply say that most Indians today aren't offended by it and that the team would not base its name on a slur. The first point misses the historical argument entirely -- even if nobody were offended by the term, its historical roots cannot be denied. It is possible that a term can change its meaning significantly over time, of course; but while that is true to a certain extent of the term "redskin," the fact that some 20% of native Americans still find the term offensive suggests that those historical meanings are still a part of the contemporary understanding. Is a term only a racial slur if 50% of a population is offended by it? 75%? Why do you insist I am just talking about "offensiveness" anyway? My point is about the history of the term.
Again, it wouldn't surprise me if many people -- including 80% of native Americans studies by SI -- were ignorant of this history of the term. Most Americans are ignorant of most of American history. But that doesn't make it false! You can't just cite a poll to dispute historical facts; what if 80% of native Americans didn't believe in World War II. Would you use that as evidence that World War II was a hoax?
Finally, I don't completely disagree with your point about trivializing more important issues. I am not an activist on this issue, and I think there are many more significant problems for native Americans today than the names of football teams. But that doesn't change the historical facts, which I don't think you can ignore. And I think it is worse than ignoring it when you assert with such certainty that the historical fact is false, when your only evidence is an opinion poll.
That is true in one federal court decision that is likely to be overturned if the question is considered at the supreme court. Fair use includes using the work for educational, journalistic, and similar purposes. The parody/satire distinction was created in a federal court decision to clarify that the person using a work "fairly" must have a good reason to be using that particular work and not another work; in other words that the expression must be integrally related to the use of a particular work. It makes more sense that way but even then I would argue it is specious because the first amendment and the fair use clause protect an artist's right to make a point -- not the artist's right to make a point in the most effective or cleverest manner possible. It seems to me ludicrous (and I expect the Supreme Court would agree if they ever hear this question) that an artist's right to make fun of other artists deserves greater protection than an artist's right to make a political point.
Second, I am not disputing the poll (though I have seen others); I am making the point that this term has a history of being a racial slur. If your poll is accurate, some 20% of native Americans find the term offensive; hardly an insignificant number. But even if the number were smaller, it is still pretty obviously a slur based on its historical usage, which you do not dispute. I don't know why the team would call itself a slur, other than that they, like you, thought the term was innocent of negative connotations. In other words, they made an unfortunate mistake.
The particular history of this term is not merely offensive; it is murderous. So the 20% who object to it probably object to it quite significantly, with reasonable historical basis for their objections. The fact that 80% are blind to that history is irrelevant; most Americans, native or not, are relatively ignorant of American history.
Third, I don't "wish to portray" this term as a slur; it is pretty clear from its use historically what it meant and why it is considered a slur by many. I'm also not saying that the use of the term should be banned as a mascot. That's up to the team. But if it were my team, and I realized that we had unintentionally chosen a racial slur that was offensive to 20% of the population, I would probably change it just to show good will. But maybe that's just me.
This is an opinion poll. It's hardly responsive to the historical question of the origin of the term "redskin." Whether or not only 1 in 5 are actually offended by it, the origin of the term clearly suggests what one cannot but call a "racial slur." It's an open question whether the 4 out of 5 would agree if presented with that history. But it's also irrelevant to whether the term is a slur. (But of course I don't really expect anyone who cites National Review as the sole source for anything to catch such nuances).
This link suggests otherwise. And this discussion refers to a different court case that clearly supports the notion of "redskin" as a derogatory term referring to the scalps of Indian victims. And in the Kotelly case you mention, the judge plainly states that her ruling is not a ruling on whether the term is offensive to Indians in general or not. Whether or not Dietz put paint on his face, it's pretty clear that this term is widely considered an insult based on the history cited in these links.
That is absurd. "Redskin" may only make sense to 1% (though it is likely more), but if most of those are native Americans, they know they are being slurred. How can you say it is not an ethnic slur??
Will it run under Windows?
Do extensions like this work on Camino for OS X? Is there a how-to somewhere about using these extensions on OSX?
They speak Hispanic.
yes, but it turns out "dupe" means "sniveling little dweeb" in Bengali...
I don't think so. They are making money off of providing an educational service, and those papers facilitate that service. I suppose it's arguable either way. I never supported the idea that copy centers couldn't make a reasonable sum selling course readers which are clearly within fair use bounds; I would think this case is even more clear since the papers as stored in the database are not actually being read or accessed as copyrighted material. But in any case, none of this applies if the paper is plagiarized :)
I also teach at a large public institution, and I don't think the cheating is that bad either. It is much worse at the more prestigious research universities. I once had a rash of cheating -- this was blatant plagiarism from websites -- from U Michigan students at a summer course I taught. I got to talk with a few of them after they were caught and they said that it was simply rampant where they went to school and that teachers there never catch them cheating. I can say at my university it happens a lot but there are a lot more professors trying to catch it, and the most blatant and stupid stuff, like copying websites verbatim, is usually caught. Funny thing was most of the students I talked to about it saw cheating as a legitimate way of getting ahead, and some even said the risk was worth it and they would do it again in the same situation -- this is after getting caught! Somewhere along the line they are learning values that suggest that cheating can be a worthwhile risk to take in order to move forward.
If the paper is plagiarized, the student doesn't really own the copyright. As far as the teacher is concerned, if the paper is legit, this is clearly "fair use" from the perspective of education; in fact, it's use is only educational in this database, since it's not actually being distributed to (or read by) anyone and is only being used to further a legitimate educational purpose. So, in short, the answer is no.
Do your papers come with a disclaimer "for research only"? If so, are you willing to make them available to professors in a database that can be searched to catch students who are cheating by using them?
The really sad thing is the number of students who try to justify cheating, even after they've been caught.
I've got a better idea. How about running around the net doing some fucking research instead of "picking up term papers." How about reading some essays, articles on the topic from legitimate published sources (not some loser whose idea of a good thing to do with his college degree is run a half-ass cheating website) and learning about it for a change? Then instead of "stitching together a term paper" and editing it "in your own personal style," how about putting together the research you've gathered in your own style to make a point that is uniquely yours? It's really not that different, and chances are, it won't take you that much longer than cheating in the way you suggest, and there's zero chance of getting caught since you won't be fucking cheating!!! (There's a Simpsons episode where Bart actually studies for an exam and when he does well he's convinced it's a whole new way to cheat).
Good idea; I may use that. The thing is, where I work (large state university), most of the students who cheat just copy their shit right off the web and it's that easy to find. 10 seconds in google and your college career is over. You really think it's worth the risk? Well, for at least 5-10 students per year (out of the 300 or so that pass through my courses in a year), the answer is apparently yes, and that's just the ones I've actually caught. I suppose all cheaters can't be that stupid but so many of them are that proposals like the above are beside the point.