Tullycast

Cheating on an Ethics Test? It’s ‘Topic A’ at Columbia – New York Times:

Stories

Cheating on an Ethics Test? It’s ‘Topic A’ at Columbia – New York Times:

December 1, 2006
Cheating on an Ethics Test? It’s ‘Topic A’ at Columbia
By KAREN W. ARENSON

Cheating is not unheard of on university campuses. But cheating on an open-book, take-home exam in a pass-fail course seems odd, and all the more so in a course about ethics.

Yet Columbia’s Graduate School of Journalism is looking into whether students may have cheated on the final exam in just such a course, “Critical Issues in Journalism.” According to the school’s Web site, the course “explores the social role of journalism and the journalist from legal, historical, ethical, and economic perspectives,” with a focus on ethics.

Nicholas Lemann, dean of the journalism school, said that students had to sign on to a Columbia Web site to gain access to the exam, and that once they did, had 90 minutes to write a couple of essays. But he was unwilling to detail how the cheating might have occurred.

Mr. Lemann said that no student had been formally accused of any violation, but that the issue had become “Topic A” at the school.

The situation was reported yesterday by RadarOnline.com.

The course was taught by Samuel G. Freedman, a professor of journalism at the school who also contributes columns on education and religion to The New York Times. Mr. Freedman confirmed yesterday evening that “there are allegations of cheating.”

“We are looking into them,” he said, adding that he did not want to comment further because of privacy concerns.

Students in the course, which is required of all students in Columbia’s basic journalism master’s program, have been told they must attend a specially scheduled additional session of the course today in connection with the exam. About 200 students took the course this fall.

“We have encountered a serious problem with the final exam, and will not register a passing grade in the course for anyone who does not attend,” David A. Klatell, vice dean at the school, wrote in an e-mail message, which was forwarded to a reporter by a student. Mr. Klatell did not respond to several telephone and e-mail requests for comment.

Mr. Lemann said that he was surprised that students might have been concerned about how they scored on the pass-fail exam, and that exams and grades at the school were rare.

“We are not a very grade-intensive institution,” he said. “Our school is run on a pass-fail basis.”

“Our students are strivers,” he added. “But they are striving to get good clips. It is not like law school, where fine differences in points make all the difference in the world.”

Because freedumb isn’t free!

Stories

Welcome to AJC! | ajc.com:

Because freedumb isn’t free! We just had to fight for it, quit asking me why and making me think, you’re making my head hurt. Besides, dissent is treason. I know, I know, the original argument was about WMD, and that wasn’t anywhere to be found. We can’t dwell on the past now, we must move on. Troops are on the ground now, and we need to show support. The message is that you should say whatever you have to say to get a war started, and we will feel obligated to keep it going. That’s just how it is. Don’t think we won’t get you later on for lying! In the meantime, let’s blow some limbs around! WooHoo! You know, you should go over there and freedomize something, then see if you ask why. Take a freedom bullet, put it in your freedom gun, and send some freedom into someone. Maybe you can get some freedom in you, too. Then, you can come home and vote. Yep. Haven’t you heard? Ever since Iraq threatened our freedom, of course we couldn’t vote or speak freely, but since we went over there and fought to keep us free, the Iraqis were forced to stop screwing with our democratic processes, and we are free once again. Go Freedom! Fly on, oh proud Eagle!

US scientists reject interference

Stories

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | US scientists reject interference:

Some 10,000 US researchers have signed a statement protesting about political interference in the scientific process.

The statement, which includes the backing of 52 Nobel Laureates, demands a restoration of scientific integrity in government policy.

According to the American Union of Concerned Scientists, data is being misrepresented for political reasons.

It claims scientists working for federal agencies have been asked to change data to fit policy initiatives.

Lawyer: Was there any relationship between the first World Trade Center bombing and the 9/11 attacks

Stories

TULLYVISION – Is the FBI doing its best to combat terrorism? Highest-ranking Arab-American agent says no.:

Lawyer: Was there any relationship between the first World Trade Center bombing and the 9/11 attacks?

Lewis: I’m aware of no immediate relationship other than all emanates out of the Middle East, al-Qaida linkage, I believe. Not something I’ve studied recently that I’m conversant with.

654,965 (at least 392,979 and as many as 942,636) Iraqi civilians had been killed in the occupation

Stories

Unknown News | Casualties in Afghanistan & Iraq :

Estimate of Iraqi civilian deaths is based on this study, published in Britain’s most respected medical journal The Lancet in October 2006. The study concluded that 654,965 (at least 392,979 and as many as 942,636) Iraqi civilians had been killed in the occupation, in addition to deaths expected from Iraq’s normal death rate.

US authorities, including President Bush himself, have loudly complained that the study is based on “flawed methodology” and “pretty well discredited,” but as often happens when Bush speaks, that’s simply untrue. The study, conducted by Johns Hopkins University, used standard, widely accepted, peer-reviewed scientific methodology. Explained very briefly, Iraqi respondants in numerous randomly selected locations were asked about recent deaths in their households, and family members were able to show a death certificate to document 80% of the deaths they described. Results from these interviews were extrapolated nationwide, the same way political opinion polls extrapolate a few hundred interviews to reflect nationwide opinions. It’s the same method used by the US Centers for Disease Control to estimate deaths from disease outbreak anywhere in the world, the same method routinely trusted by the US and UK when counting deaths from warfare, civil unrest, or other situations anywhere in the world.

Based on the study’s estimate of 654,965 deaths occurring over the first 40 months of occupation, we have extended this rate of civilian deaths (16,374 deaths per month) over subsequent months of the occupation since the study was published. Of course, we will adjust this figure when more accurate or credible information becomes available.

. US and coalition military deaths and US military injuries in Iraq are announced by US Department of Defense and CENTCOM, and tracked by the good folks at Iraq Coalition Casualty Count. Our heading “seriously injured” reflects DoD listing of injuries described as “Wounded in action, [did] not return to duty within 72 hours,” and excludes injuries wherein troops return to duty within 72 hours.

The officially-announced number of US injuries is deceptive, however, because the US military does not include in its figures service members who are evacuated “from Iraq and Afghanistan for injuries or illnesses not caused directly by enemy bullets or bombs.” This would leave out, for example, soldiers sickened by radiation or injured in transport accidents.

According to this article by Salon reporter Mark Benjamin, an additional 25,289 service members had been evacuated from Iraq and Afghanistan for injuries or illnesses, but not included in the official numbers. Based on Salon’s article, dated December 2005 and including injuries through the first 34 months of occupation, we have extrapolated this rate of un-reported military injuries (743 injuries per month) over subsequent months of the extended occupation. Of course, we will adjust this figure when more accurate or credible information becomes available.

Coalition injuries are not tracked, and posted number reflects an estimate, per ratios explained below.

. US and coalition civilian deaths in Iraq are tracked by Iraq Coalition Casualty Count.

Where no credible data on serious injuries to citizens or troops has been made public, our rough estimate uses a conservative, historically-based ratio of 3:1 (serious injuries to fatalities) for troops, 1.8:1 for civilians.

Deaths and injuries included are generally only those resulting directly from military actions — bombs, missiles, bullets, etc. Civilians’ deaths and injuries from the chaos of Afghan and Iraqi day-to-day life after the invasions, from disease, from malnutrition, from depleted uranium, from post-traumatic stress disorder, and other incidental effects of warfare are not included.

Numbers are updated often, so if you find more recent or more credible numbers, please let us know. Our email address is unknownnews at inbox.com.

The Weight On Conservative Bloggers:

Stories

PSoTD

It’s hard to imagine, all that weight they must carry. How often they’ve been wrong, on practically everything, as they supported Bush and the Republican Congress the past 4 years. And all the evidence that piles up, from almost everything related to the long-term disaster we’re in called Iraq, to Iran, to North Korea, to global warming, to national debt, to bad economic signs, to election results. The rest of the world says they’re wrong. Many of them still say the rest of the world is wrong. How very heavy that must be.

They really need a vacation, a long vacation, from blogging. For their own good. It has to be so much harder to blog when you know so much that you’ve said in the past has been disproved or is in the process of being disproven. It must be heavy. It must be sad. It must be tiring.

So… it’s time for America to recommend that many take a break. Instapundit, time to put away the blog for a few months. Althouse, time to write a book or something. Power Line… bon voyage. Take a break. Lift the weight.

MyDD :: John Hinderaker unhinged::2005 REDUX::

Stories

MyDD :: John Hinderaker unhinged
Jerome Armstrong wrote:
 John Hinderaker,  who writes for Time magazine’s “Blog of the Year”, dived into calling Jimmy Carter treasonous (“Jimmy Carter isn’t just misguided or ill-informed. He’s on the other side.”) This week, Hinderaker has become unhinged:

You dumb shit, he didn’t get access using a fake name, he used his real name. You lefties’ concern for White House security is really touching, but you know what, you stupid asshole, I think the Secret Service has it covered. Go crawl back into your hole, you stupid left-wing shithead. And don’t bother us anymore. You have to have an IQ over 50 to correspond with us. You don’t qualify, you stupid shit.
……………………………………………..John Hinderaker via email
So I fired off an email:
Hindrocket, you need to take your meds, your sounding and reading LGF now, roflmao.
Waiting for a response…