New School Politics

If you're a first time visitor, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed, which will keep you up to date with all the latest New School Politics posts. Thanks for visiting!

In today’s fast paced world, students are compelled to do whatever they can to get ahead. Stiff competition from quickly expanding third-world countries like India and China has motivated the US government to start new initiatives seeking to bring education to the forefront. In the process, thousands of students across the country are caught up; desperately trying to find their way in an increasingly difficult to navigate system. College admissions are on the rise, as evidenced by a recent New York Times article. The article mentions the fact that oftentimes even the most qualified students [those with either a 4.0 Grade Point Average or perfect 2400 SAT scores] are rejected from America’s top universities.

The increasing level of competition often drives students to participate in rather unsavory activities. Plagiarism, cheating, and other dishonest academic behaviors run rampant through the halls of America’s educational institutions. The new wave of perfidy has given way to a rise in organizations that combat academic deception. iParadigms, LLC, was one of the first companies to fight plagiarism. Their turnitin.com service, which originally began as plagiarism.org, has become the de facto leader in a rapidly proliferating field.

They face challenges from the law, however. Four students from across the country are suing iParadigms for copyright infringement of their intellectual property. The Washington Post broke the story first, noting that while the service is valuable to dozens of academic institutions, it may violate several US laws. The service, utilized by dozens of colleges [including Harvard and Georgetown Universities] and high schools [including the one the founders of New School Politics attend], purports to catch plagiarism. My experience with the service proves its thoroughness. Whenever I cite from an online source, Turnitin always knows where I’ve cited from. Even snippets from essays like “Bill of Rights” are highlighted because they are often used by the authors of other papers. The question is, however: does Turnitin violate the rights of students? The four students that are bringing the lawsuit against iParadigms allege that they copyrighted their papers before submitting them and explicitly acknowledged that they’d like them not to remain on Turnitin’s servers. As the service is automated, it was unable to respond to that request and archived their papers anyway. The WP cites Andrew Beckerman-Rodau of Suffolk University Law School, who notes that “it seems like Turnitin is a commercial use. They turn around and sell this service, and it’s expensive. And the service only works because they get these papers.”

I’m not an expert, but I feel somewhat qualified to comment on the case because I have some [albeit limited] knowledge of intellectual property law and experience with Turnitin’s service. There are no objections to the fact that Turnitin does archive student papers. Unfortunately for iParadigms, in this case, the papers they archived were copyrighted. Turnitin, however, seems to have their bases covered. In an online intellectual property Q&A [caution: the file is a PDF], they assert that the “legality of the services has been confirmed by our nationally recognized law firm, Foley & Lardner, and law firms throughout the world.” The upcoming trial will test their claim.

The bigger question is: should such services even be necessary? In Friday’s Wall Street Journal, an article entitled “The Admissions Police“, runs down a list of reasons for admissions counselors at America’s top universities to be vigilant. They provide several examples of students falsifying information on applications. Has the world pressured students so much that they now must lie to get ahead in life? Several of the colleges mentioned in the article are even hiring professional private investigators to do background checks on prospective students. Whose fault is this? Has society pressured students into lying…is this somehow the fault of government? The disconcerting news of dishonesty in academia should serve as a warning-bell of a nascent trend. If this tradition is to continue without structure, could academia only become an area where students learn vile habits for later life? Several have argued that, instead of vetting papers through services like Turnitin, students should have morality lessons in school. The case with Turnitin is cause for distress. Is society forcing students to distort themselves into something they’re not? As one-time students progress into the work world, their habits may travel with them, bringing a new era of dishonest and a lack of accountability in the future. Conservatives are constantly concerned with family values but few have approached the area of education [besides arguing for Creationism to be taught in schools]. Morality may start at home, but school’s an important place as well. As America’s educational system groans under the further weight of deceit and deception, it’s important to ensure that accountability in education is preserved.

Popularity: 39% [?]

This summer, Hezbollah, a terrorist organization operating out of Lebanon, kidnapped two Israeli soldiers and killed several others. After days of scrutinizing the reasoning and organizations behind the attack, Israel decided to authorize a “severe” response against Lebanon, the country harboring Hezbollah. After the world condemned both countries, Israel continued bombing Lebanon, at one point commencing in a ground campaign aimed at the destruction of Hezbollah. The US tried to remain impartial but couldn’t help but get involved on the side of the Israelis. The “war,” as Israel has just officially declared it, caused grave public relations disasters for both countries throughout the world as images of dead children were broadcast throughout the world by international news agencies. Weeks after intense rocket barrages, Israel decided to end the war even after they didn’t achieve their goals. The conflict should have served as an example to countries around the world about the risks of keeping enemy soldiers as POWs.

Fast forward to March 23, 2007. After British Navy soldiers from the HMS Cornwall boarded a boat in Iraqi waters to search it, they were captured by Iranian Revolutionary Guard soldiers. Britain has tried to resolve the conflict amicably, but Tony Blair has continually chastised Iran for what he calls an “unjustified and wrong” act. Recent UN sanctions have put Iran under pressure to eliminate their nuclear program. As usual, however, Iran has stood firm, calling the sanctions “unlawful” and “unjustifiable.” With the sanctions adding more fuel to the fire, one must wonder how far Iran plans to go. Will the UK, like Israel, react to the Iranian conflict with force? Senator John McCain suggested that the UK take “very decisive action” against Iran while the US provides “moral support.”
Lire le reste de cet article »

Popularity: 59% [?]

Is not welcome. The men and women chosen to run this country’s military are there for that purpose and that purpose only. This week, however, Joint Chiefs Chairman General Peter Pace went public with his feelings on the recent “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy upheaval (audio provided by Think Progress). Had he stopped there, his comments would have had merit. As the highest ranking military officer in the United States (besides, of course, our esteemed Commander-in-Chief), Pace has a responsibility to guide the military in a direction that he believes is best for the future. However, Pace took things a step further, claiming that “homosexual acts between individuals are immoral, and that we should not condome immoral acts.” Pace continues by noting that the military has a responbility to purge itself of immoral individuals.

Who determines what immoral means? Since his outburst, Pace has been publicly chastised by several prominent politicians, including Senator John Warner. The Virginia Republican “respectfully, but strongly disagree[s] with the chairman’s view that homosexuality is immoral.” Fortunately, Pace seems to have agreed with the public’s rapid judgment, noting that he did offer “some personal opinions about moral conduct.” Pace admitted that he “should have focused more on my support of the policy and less on my personal moral views.”

Pace’s views were scrutinized differently than those presented by Former General John M. Shalikashvili in his “Second Thoughts on Gays in the Military” article in the NY Times. Shalikashvili’s more tolerant view seemed to strike a chord with the majority of Americans. His sincerity in addressing the situation is admirable. Pace’s, however, is a whole different matter. He seems to be refusing to apologize for his actions, and, instead, notes that he should have just focused on military policy. Don’t wait for an apology. The AP reports that, despite commentary from high-profile politicans, Pace will not retract his statement. Nancy Pelosi responded, showboating the Democratic reputation for tolerance, claiming that “the military should carefully consider changing this policy….We don’t need moreal judgment from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs.”

I addressed the matter of homosexuals in the military earlier in an article entitled “Do Tell, Do Serve.” Regardless of opinion on the matter of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” public backlash has made it clear that Pace’s opinions aren’t welcome in the public forum. Bloggers pounced on his bigotry, diminishing the US military’s image in the process as well. His views are his and his alone, and General Pace should not have used his position as Chairman to further his political agenda.

technorati tags:homosexuality, pace, military, jointchiefs

Popularity: 33% [?]

On March 31, 1998, General Motors took a colossal step forward. Years of research had yielded a car capable of replacing petroleum powered vehicles. The EV1 proved to naysayers that electric cars were a feasible enterprise. A quick glance at statistics on the EV1 prove that the car provided affordable and efficient transportation to all drivers. The futuristic styling was intended to appeal to auto enthusiasts everywhere, as were the nimble 0-60 speed (8 seconds), and the higher than average range (60 miles on a single charge). The EV1 was “simply put…amazing,” claimed Generation 2 EV1 driver Kris Trexler. Trexler’s 3,275 mile voyage through the United States showed that the EV1 was a car that was, in fact, efficient and capable of replacing gasoline powered vehicles. GM pleased thousands with the EV1. One day in 2003, however, the American automaker announced they were recalling all EV1s. The death of the electric car was abrupt and swift. Who Killed the Electric Car?, a documentary by director Chris Paine, documents the rise and fall of the EV1. Lire le reste de cet article »

Popularity: 56% [?]

The news is beginning to splash across the blogosphere and the AP wire that an agreement has been reached with North Korea about its nuclear programs.  Years of negotiations have failed to yield an agreement. After talks fell suspect to failure earlier in the week, noone expected an agreement in the coming days.  Negotiators have, however, proved skeptics wrong.  Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill notes his jubilance at the agreement, claiming that he’s “encouraged by this that we were able to take a step forward on the denuclearization issue.” 

The end of a 16-hour day full of negotiations has delivered an agreement.  The mainstream media has sparse details on the agreement, and news agencies like CNN are calling the agreement tentative.  Chinese Foreign ministry Spokesman Qin Gang followed up with a little bit more information, detailing that the parties “still have to make further consultation discussions so as to confirm the progress we made.”  Negotiations begin again tomorrow at 10:30AM Korean time, which equates to 9:30PM Monday ET. 

The initial enthusiasm may be short lived, however.  Several of the nations involved in the talks, including Japan, expressed doubt at the agreement.  Kenichiro Sasae, chief envoy from Japan, said it was “too early to tell” if the agreement was one that would be satisfactory to all parties.  North Korea’s demands were viewed as slightly excessive by South Korea and Japan.  It will be interesting to see how much of a compromise North Korea has made in order to reach this agreement.  The Arms Control Associaton provides a concise history of the conflict.  Previous negotiations with North Korea have resulted in successful agreements that broke apart because of North Korean noncompliance.  The original “Agreed Framework” can also be viewed courtesy of the ACA.  The agreement broke down in late 2002 after North Korea admitted to a nuclear program after being confronted with evidence by the US. 

Needless to say, any sort of agreement with the North Koreans is big news for the American people and for the entire world.  The dismantling of the North Korean nuclear program leaves one country left on the US “Axis of Evil”: Iran.  News about North Korea’s nuclear program died down after their claimed underground nuclear test on October 9, 2006.  Tensions with Iran were high this week as the US accused the country of arming insurgents in Iraq.  Newsweek did a special on the looming conflict with Iran, with a cover touting “America’s Hidden War with Iran.”  The Guardian, meanwhile, cited examples of US provocations.  A second US battle group was sent to the Gulf in anticipation of a conflict with Iran.  The report concluded that the “present military build-up in the Gulf would allow the US to mount an attack by the spring.”  Iran has vehemently dismissed American accusations and the Washington Post reports today that Bush has “softened his rhetoric on Iranian relations.”  In the report, Ahmadinejad calls for peace,

“We shy away from any kind of conflict, any kind of bloodshed,” Ahmadinejad told ABC’s “Good Morning America.” “As we have said repeatedly, we think that the world problems can be solved through dialogue, through the use of logic and a sense of friendship. There is no need for the use of force.”

Bush Softens Rhetoric on Iran Relations - washingtonpost.com

While the conflict with Iran seems far from reconciliation, the North Korean problem appears to have been solved, if only for a brief period of time.  The American people should expect to hear a lot about Christopher Hill’s success in North Korea, as it’s one of the few diplomatic successes the US government has had abroad in recent years.  We’ll be back with more commentary as more news is available.

Avid readers can watch for news from the wires, papers, blogs, and more at Breitbart.

technorati tags:iran, northkorea, christopherhill, kimjongil, us, nuclear, nuke

Popularity: 24% [?]

America’s military has been off limits to homosexuals for years.  As part of the famed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy highlighted in American policy throughout the years and proposed by Bill Clinton and Colin Powell, gays have been able to serve as long as they do not disclose their sexual orientation.  The chronology of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell shows the onslaught of criticism the program faced both when it was passed and in the immediate years after.

The question, however, remains:  Why shouldn’t gays be able to serve in the military?  Other minorities fought for years to be able to serve alongside their fellow Americans.  Their victory led to the integration of the military.  Yet homosexual service in the military has been frowned upon since the inception of the United States military.  The dismissal of homosexual soldiers is hurting our military.  The SLDN notes that “during every major military mobilization, gay discharges have dropped.”  Clearly, the military needs our homosexual soldiers.  If not, why aren’t they being dismissed at the same rate during conflict periods?  

The SLDN, along with other legal and gay rights organizations, is ramping up their fight for the repeal of the policy.  This time, Congress isn’t ignoring their pleas for equality.  Last session’s bill H.R. 1059 [commonly referred to as the Military Readiness Act of 2005], sponsored by Representative Martin T. Meehan, calls for replacement of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy with “a policy of nondiscrimination in the military on the basis  of sexual orientation.”  Meehan, along with 122 other cosponsors, supported the bill as it worked its way through the 109th Congress.  Unfortunately, the bill wasn’t passed by the end of the session. 

Representative Gary Ackermann (D-NY) made big news Wednesday afternoon during a Congressional session with Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice.  Earlier in the month, the Secretary had expressed concerns about not having enough translators in Iraq.  Ackerman fired back, telling Rice that she “might find some of those competent people among those who were recently unemployed over the past several years,” referring to the gays that had been discharged from military service in recent years.  A December 2006 poll has helped to give more backing to supporters of the Meehan policy.  The Zogby poll, available online as a PDF here, shows that 73% of those polled in the military say they are personally comfortable in the presence of gays and lesbians.  Only 20% said they were uncomfortable.  Meehan responded to the survey with strong words, claiming

“These new data prove that thousands of gay and lesbian service members are already deployed overseas and are integrated, important members of their units. It is long past time to strike down ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ and create a new policy that allows gays and lesbians to serve openly.”

Zogby International

A Boston Globe poll from May 2005 shows that 79% of American civilians don’t mind gays serving in the military.  In a New York Times editorial, General John Shalikashvili reversed his course

I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces. Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job.

Op Ed: Second Thoughts on Gays in the Military

Shalikashvili imagines a day when “gay men and lesbians will no longer have to conceal who they are and the military will no longer need to sacrifice those whose service it cannot afford to lose.” America is ready, and the wheels have just begun turning. 

Representative Ackerman helped to fuel the debate once again during hearings earlier in the week.  His tongue-in-cheek rant has since become famous on the internet,

“For some reason, the military seems more afraid of gay people than they are against terrorists, but they’re very brave with the terrorists. … If the terrorists ever got a hold of this information, they’d get a platoon of lesbians to chase us out of Baghdad.”

The Frontlines: Ackerman’s Lesbian Platoon

The military must accept gays and lesbians, and the time for the integration is now.  Marty Meehan’s “Dear Colleague” letter has begun circulating around Congress and he plans to introduce a bill overturning the old “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy as soon as possible.  Meehan’s bill is crucial to the civil rights of homosexuals in this country and to the status of the military in the future. 

If you’d like to take action, SLDN and the Michael D. Palm Center have more information.

technorati tags:military, condoleezarice

Popularity: 34% [?]

The field expanded yet again today with an announcement from Joe Biden of his intention to seek the Democratic nomination for the presidency in 2008.  Biden, the “800th candidate,”  announced his candidacy this afternoon.  He didn’t join the field of candidates without throwing punches, criticizing the policies of the two current front runners, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.  “Biden Unbound,” an article published in yesterday’s New York Observer lays out Biden’s tirade.  All of the other candidates, claim Biden, are “playing politics.”  While some were quick to criticize Biden and his attack against the other Democratic candidates, some groups applaud his candidacy.  Real Clear Politics claims that

Biden deserves more than an occasional cameo next to Democratic headliners Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden is a foreign-policy sophisticate at a time when Iraq and terrorism are the national obsessions.

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Put Biden in the Front Row

Biden aimed to contradict the “sound-bite” strategy of his rivals by giving them “straight answers.”  His comments today, however, were treated as just that.  The most repeated quote of the day seems to be Biden’s seemingly racist comments about Barack Obama

“You got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” Mr. Biden said in an interview published online yesterday by the New York Observer. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

Biden Ignites Furor With Remark on Obama - February 1, 2007 - The New York Sun

Biden claims he would prefer a plan in which there is a “political settlement between the Sunnis and the Shias.  We ought to bring all the parties together…There is no military solution to Iraq.”  Biden has drawn harsh criticism from both sides of the spectrum but Real Clear Politics finds him worthty yet again.

A Democratic candidate who has the most promising plan for getting us out of Iraq — and tried to avoid many of the mistakes going in — should not be looked at askance. Joe Biden is worldly wise, and for that he merits a spot on the first tier.

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Put Biden in the Front Row

It will be interesting to see if their prediction does, in fact, come true.  At the moment, Biden’s running a distant third.  His comments today may have boosted his notoriety, but is the press for the better?

technorati tags:biden, politics, 2008, elections, democrats

Popularity: 15% [?]

Barack Obama has been hit from all sides as of late.  It all started last week with a story by Insight Magazine that discussed Obama’s upbringing.   The article claimed that Obama was educated in a radical Muslim school in Indonesia.  The schools,  frequently referred to as “madrassas,”  were disclosed in Obama’s autobiographies.  Insight Magazine, however, claimed that Obama and his campaign have “not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage.”  The article continued, claiming that Obama “was a Muslim, but he concealed it…His opponents within the Democrats hope this will become a major issue in the campaign.”  The right wing villified the Clinton campaign and claimed that Hillary was digging for dirt in her opponent’s history.

“The idea is to show Obama as deceptive,” claimed the same source in Insight Magazine.  Fox News continued the smear tactics, showing a story about Obama’s “dirty little secret:” cigarette smoking.  In reality, Obama had also revealed that character flaw earlier in his political career.  Fox News’ deceiving coverage of Obama has landed them in hot water with his campaign.  As the media knows, interviews are important.  Obama’s campaign, however, claims that they “will not be swift-boated” by Fox News.  They are, of course, referring to John Kerry’s problem with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth group.  The group smeared Kerry’s image as a war hero with dishonest tactics.  Obama’s campaign hopes to avoid the same treatment.

The Washington Post uncovered the extent of the damage of the “madrassa campaign.”  One Fox journalist claimed “I’m still in the freezer.”  Obama’s campaign refuses to speak to Fox News staffers.  The article also details the attention Obama has given to other media outlets (CNN, CBS, NBC, etc.) while duly ignoring Fox News. 

What has this done for Obama’s standings in the race for the Democratic nomination in 2008?   So far, results are negligible, showing that Obama’s supporters support his ideals, not his history.   Only time will tell how “Madrassagate” will treat the Obama campaign.  With new Democratic announcements, Obama’s going to have a tougher time achieving success in the upcoming primaries.   

technorati tags:obama, 2008, elections, foxnews, fox, media, clinton

Popularity: 14% [?]

Since when has the attorney general been able to interpret the Constitution?  Speaking before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Alberto Gonzales simply claimed that the right of habeas corpus could be taken from Americans at any time.   Gonzales later claimed that “there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution.”  Clearly, the government has already shown its disregard for the Constitution.  Directly defying and interpreting it, however, is a whole other matter.  Interpretation of the Constitution is part of the jurisdiction of the judicial system.  1803’s Marbury v. Madison established the concept of judicial review.  The Supreme Court (and thereby only the judicial branch of government) had the right to interpret the Constitution.   The Bush Administration has shown its willingness to bend Constitutional precepts with such programs as the recent NSA wiretapping and illegal imprisonments.  The new Democratic Congress won’t stand for the same sorts of Constitutional abuses that the administration has been allowed to commit during the reign of the Republican Congress. Committee chair Arlen Specter (R-PA) got into a lengthy argument with Gonzales over the matter, arguing that the “Constitution says you can’t take [habeas corpus] away except in the case of invasion or rebellion.”  Gonzales retorted with an almost unlawful claim, claiming that

“Constitution doesn’t say that every individual in the United States or every citizen has or is assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn’t say that. It simply says that the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended”

The remainder of Gonzales’ testimony can be seenbelow.   It’s simply astonishing that such grave violations of the Constitutional rights of Americans are being abridged by the very same authority entrusted with the task of protecting them.  The Constitution is more than a guideline; it’s the rulebook for governance.  Unfortunately, the Bush Administration doesn’t think so. 

Popularity: 17% [?]

America’s founding fathers created a Constitution meant to govern the country for the hundreds of years that would follow. They incorporated contingency plans for many situations; planning for times of war, peace, economic depression, etc. The Bush Administration, however, regards the ages-old document as “just a goddamned scrap of paper.” The Constitution is far more than the administration acknoweldges. Bush’s attitude about the document alone is not the problem; it’s the way he’s acting upon it. The Constitution as written was meant to be interpreted by the courts, not by the president. The Iraq War, however, has provided Mr. Bush with an exemplary opportunity to seize powers for the executive.

In effect, Mr. Bush is planning on racking up an extraordinary bill in Iraq and presenting it to Congress without their prior commitment. Recent events highlight the extent to which Mr. Bush is willing to go to achieve what the President claims is, “a better chance for success” in Iraq. Bush’s speech Wednesday night called for a commitment of 20,000 troops but made no mention of the appropriations to fund Bush’s new plan. After all, Congress is the only governmental agency that posesses the “power of the purse.” Still, Bush forged on, claiming that enough money is in governmental coffers to begin his plan. By the time extra troops are on the ground, “it will be too late for Congress to stop them.”

Apparently Bush wasn’t confident enough in his earlier attempt to garner financing from an unfriendly Congress. In an interview Sunday night with 60 Minutes, Bush noted that he would send troops to Iraq regardless of what Congress’ wishes were. Bush was asked if he had the authority to send troops to Iraq regardless of Congress’ wishes. His reply was an ugly affront to the principles of the Constitution, “I think I’ve got, in this situation I do, yeah. I fully understand they could try to stop me from doing it. But I’ve made my decision. And we’re going forward.”

Congress does have the right to limit funding for Bush’s project. The Center for American Progress mentions several key examples of funding revocations, including personnel ceilings in Vietnam and Lebanon. Can it be done? With an increasingly uncooperative White House, Congress seems not to stand a chance. Unfortunately, the tide of public opinion will sway to the President on this issue. If more troops are indeed sent to Iraq without congressional approval, limiting funding would seem almost patriotic.

Some Congressmen haven’t given up the fight. This week, Ted Kennedy announced legislation demanding accountability for the new Iraq policy. Think Progress obtained key parts of Kennedy’s legislation and a summary from his office.

The legislation claims the people’s right to a full voice in the President’s plan to send more troops into the Iraq civil war. It says that no funds can be spent to send additional troops to Iraq unless Congress approves the President’s proposed escalation of American forces.

Think Progress » Kennedy Introduces Bill Requiring Congressional Approval For Iraq Escalation

Kennedy’s begs an important question: should such limitations of presidential power be necessary to begin with? The Constitution clearly delineated the roles of every branch of government. The Bush Administration seems to have rearranged the tree of government and allowed the executive to obtain an exorbitant amount of power. A New York Times editorial entitled “Picking Up the Pieces” highlights Bush’s problem, claiming “It was surreal how disconnected President Bush was the other night, both from Iraq’s horrifying reality and America’s anguish over this unnecessary, mismanaged and now unwinnable war.” The editorial, however, left out the most crucial disconnect of all: the relationship between Mr. Bush and the Constitution.

Popularity: 20% [?]