Northcoast

I don't know if you've heard Ted Leo's cover of Kelly Clarkson's Since You've Been Gone, but here's a link to a video of his cover. It's funny that he uses the Yeah Yeah Yeahs' Maps as a bridge of sorts because I think Clarkson actually rips off the fuzzy guitars from Maps in one part of her song. There is also a part of the song (immediately preceding the fuzzy guitars) where it sounds like a guitar riff taken directly from some Jimmy Eat World song. Maybe it's just me, but it seems that those two obvious rip-offs were put into the song at the very end of production in order to give it some sort of "edge."

Here's an interesting article from Slate titled "Why can't anyone throw a baseball faster than 100 mph?"

A librarian from a large research university said that they put labels on some older books that contain ideas that are largely disputed within the scientific community. This is done because students researching a topic might think the book is an authoritative resource, when, in fact, the student should be pointed to other more current and reputable resources on the topic.

Why don't they just get rid of the book if they feel compelled to put a notation on it? She didn't mention it, but many times research libraries keep older out-of-date materials for historical research. Old medical books, law books, and books on a wide variety of subjects are useful for those wanting an historical perspective on their given topic.

I know that there is a slippery-slope aspect to the situation, but I do think that in certain subjects a notation must be made for legal reasons. Law books are one resource that must be kept up-to-date because erroneous information could lead to a lawsuit against the library. Therefore, most libraries that maintain older editions of legal materials label the books in some way to indicate that the books are for historical research purposes only. Medical texts are also another resource that could possibly lead to lawsuits if not kept up-to-date.

Other types of material (for example, Freud's works) do not require notations for questionable theories because bad information about dream interpretation cannot possibly lead to legal troubles. So, I guess I'm saying that I disagree with puttting labels on old biology (or history, economic, religion, etc.) books because they might contain information that isn't accepted by most current academics. In these cases, the student, not the library, should be responsible for evaluating the information.

Regarding one of your other points, I think some librarians feel compelled to act on plagiarism because the entire goal of research is creating original ideas. Plagiarism goes against the basic tenets of good scholarship (not to mention copyright law). Although plagiarism has been around for a long time, the computer-age has brought about an entire new way to copy (as with other topics, I think that people probably overstate how much plagiarism goes on today compared to the past. I'm sure tons of kids plagiarized before the Web made it easier to copy entire papers at the click of a mouse. In fact, it was probably easier to get away with plagiarism when all of the copying was done by hand). I think some librarians simply feel that if they carry a book that is known to contain plagiarism, they are supporting plagiarism.

My initial reaction is that the book should stay on the shelves with no disclaimer. If Doris issues a new edition of the book, the library should purchase it and add it to its collection without removing the original.

Frankly, I don't understand why any library would feel compelled to do anything at all. What duty to library patrons would a library uphold by warning them about plagiarism?

Keeping in mind that reasoning by analogy is suspect, this begs a related question: if the library has a duty to warn about plagiarism, does it have a duty to warn about inaccuracies or outright lies? Let's say Doris wrote a book, and was later found liable for libel based its contents. Should the library put a disclaimer on the book (WARNING: Some contents of this book have formed the basis for a successful libel suit against the author.)? Should Freud's writing have a disclaimer explaining that his theories are now suspect in the psychological community?

Seems like a slippery, slippery slope to me.

Again, those advocating for these actions (disclaimer/removal) must feel that the library owes a duty to its patrons, and I would like to know what that is.

There is an interesting topic being discussed on one of the listservs I belong to, and I thought I would post the topic and see what you guys think. One of the librarians was wondering what libraries should do about books that are known to be wholly or partly plagiarized? The two examples she gave were the highly publicized cases of Doris Kearns Goodwin's The Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys and Stephen Ambrose's The Wild Blue (both books, I believe, have since been reprinted with new quotation marks, complete bibliographies, footnoots, etc). It seems split on the listserv. Some think it should be taken out of the collection entirely, while others think that it should be kept in the collection only with a notation somewhere on the cover. Others think nothing should be done, and people should learn for themselves how to evaluate information.

People even started bringing up censorship of evolution textbooks in relation to the topic, but I don't think that issue is even the same. One involves censorship of a theory based on religious grounds, while the other topic concerns taking someone else's work and claiming it as your own. If the plagiarized books were taken out of the collection, it wouldn't be due to the content inself. It would be because the content was stolen from another author. Personally, I think putting a note on the book and keeping it in the collection is not a good solution. I would vote for leaving it in the collection (or removing it if a new "unplagiarized" version is purchased).

There was an article in the most recent New Yorker about Scalia. A lot of it was complimentary, but they did take time to point out that Scalia's "textualism" (the theory wherein the Constitution is supposidly frozen in time as of the date it was ratified, or drafted, or something) would require an interpretation of the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause to allow some pretty harsh punishment (removal of limbs, etc.). Oh, and it would preclude the possibility of civil rights.

Also, I agree, Nolan. Both branches have their respective checks against the other: among other things, the legislative branch can amend the Constitution, and the judiciary can strike down a law as unconstitutional.

So suck it up, DeLay. You don't like it? You want america to vote on each and every case before the bench? Amend the f*cking constitution and it will happen. Good luck.

Here is a site where you can email your senators to vote against the nuclear option.

In general, I agree with your assessment, Matt. I have thought about that problem a lot (that Dems' policies are not sound-bite friendly). I think they need to come up with a new all encompassing policy that is sort of populist, like in the 30s (anti-corporate), but that is re-vamped for this century. Populism lends itself to a lot of sound-bite type language that the rubes will eat up, and it can fit nicely with a lot of tradition liberal goals (like health care, for instance). It's just a matter of formulating the strategy. No small task, I admit.

My last post was phrased poorly. I agree with you Joel. Obviously there is more to judicial law than precedent. This is a necessity since, like you said, the law is not always clear.

I think the entire idea the the judicial branch can be inactivist (for lack of a better word) is ridiculous. I get frustrated when I hear someone say that the "textualist"/"Constitutionalist" approach Scalia takes is somehow better because it is unbiased and apolitical . Don't people realize that taking that position is biased and political in itself? And I don't see how people can think that a document that was written over 200 years ago should be set in stone. Society changes, and laws should change as well.

My point in the last post was to say that both the judicial and legislative branches have avenues to go down if they want to make law. If the judicial branch creates a law, the legislative branch can create an amendment to the Constitution if it doesn't like the judicial law. Then, the judiciary would be required to follow the amendment, right? My understanding of how the Constitution works with regard to the judiciary is limited, but this is how I've always understood the situation.

[rant] Following precedent (or the applicable statute) is part of it, but sometimes there is no precedent, and then the court has to decide what to do. One complaint you always hear from Hannity/DeLay/Lott/Gingrich et al. is that these "activist judges" are "making law." People eat that shit up, but they don't understand that judges are supposed to make law; that's their job. I even heard an attorney here in town say that the other day, and he should know better.

One of the judiciary's roles in our government is to interpret the law when it is not clear, and that almost ALWAYS requires creating a new rule of law. There are very few court opinions that do not create new rules of law. That's why we have the judiciary. I get so mad at that crap -- it's so god damn misleading.

And that "activist judge" crap is ridiculous. You're totally right, Nolan, it's not-so-subtle code for a judge who handed down a ruling wingnuts disagree with. I find it funny that in the Shiavo case we apparently had about fifteen different activist judges ruling against the family.

All of this, in my opinion, is a well-orchestrated effort to intimitate Dems into laying down during any potential confirmation hearing for the supreme court (and judicial confirmations in general).

[/rant]

That's the other contradiction that bothered me during the Schiavo case. Republicans are all over the place saying that "judicial activists" are ruining America. "Judicial Activism" is the new slander for any decision made by the courts that might piss off Republicans. Any decision that is made by the judiciary could be looked at in political terms - liberal, conservative, middle-of-the-road. But isn't the key whether or not the case is following precedent? If they want to change the rules for right-to-die or any other issue, they should make it political and attempt to pass an amendment to the Constitution.

By the way, in today's Star Tribune there is an article about baseball phrases. "Out of left field" is included.

Republicans are insane.

Their organization, party loyalty, and their simple, crystal clear message (i.e., family, God, country, anti-liberalism, free market, etc.) had me scared. Especially because the Dems lack all of these things.

But I think the Shiavo case could be the beginning of the backlash . If the GOP doesn't watch it, Americans are going to see GOPers for the extremist wackos they really are. For instance, can you believe this comment from Senator John Cornyner from Texas?:

I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. Certainly nothing new, but we seem to have run through a spate of courthouse violence recently that's been on the news and I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in - engage in violence.

Isn't that completely insane? How can people not be outraged by this? Of course, I've been surprised at what America agrees with in the past.

Also, speaking of hypocrasy, Nolan, does anyone else find it maddening that the Republicans are attempting to cast the judiciary as a rogue, leftish branch of government? (I saw Dr. James Dobson pleading with Congress to intervene and stop activist judges ... whatever that means. He was pissed that the courts are ignoring the will of the people. DUH!!!! That's why their appointed for life, dumbshit.)

Anyhow, if you remember the elections, lots of people were concerned about the validity of the Florida vote (didn't Jimmy Carter go down there to "observe"?). And didn't right-wingers go nuts on Dems for "de-legitimizing" and "undermining" America's confidence in the policital process?

Well, Jesus Christ, suggesting that an entire branch of the government is out of control and acting in contravention of the constitution is way, way worse (not to mention entirely wrong). These guys are EVIL.

I hope we can get the six (or is it seven) Republicans necessary to kill the nuclear option.