• Almost 5,000,000–the staggering number of homeless as a result of the Chinese earthquake. Via the BBC: ‘Five million’ homeless in quake
• 22,069–the confirmed dead from that quake (see link above).
• 78,000–the tragic current death toll from Burma. Via the BBC: Burma death toll jumps to 78,000
• 4.1–the surprising unemployment rate in Texas. Via the DMN: href="http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/051708dnbusemployment.10735d534.html" >Texas jobless rate ties record low at 4.1 percent in April

• $1.75–the amount that sheriffs in Alabama are alloted, by law, to feed inmates per day. Via the AP: Alabama sheriffs feed inmates on $1.75 a day
• 1927–the year the law above was passed, and has not been altered since.

Sometimes when I talk about plagiarism to my students, I tell them: If professors catch you plagiarizing, we don’t just think it’s a character issue. We take it as an indicator that perhaps you’re just not college material. There are several honorable and skilled professions out there that do not involve referencing and modifying others’ intellectual work; if you have the urge to plagiarize, consider keeping your integrity and switching to one of those professions instead.

An excellent point, and one that I will remember to impart to my students henceforth. The ability to obtain and properly use information in an inherent part of the academy, and the inability to do so does indicate a substantial deficiency in the skill set of the plagiarizer (as well as clear character defects). If one is unable or unwilling to learn appropriate woodworking skills, one cannot be a carpenter and if one is unable or unwilling to learn how to properly use information, one cannot be a college graduate.

A tip of the hat to Virgina Postrel, who has some additional interesting observations on the academic sin of plagiarism:

It’s unfortunate that newspaper accounts of such scandals rely so much on “objective” parallel passages rather than getting at the true disservice to the reader. When James Twitchell fails to cite sources for his statistics, leading readers to assume he is the source, he deprives those readers of further information on the subject, including when the stats were gathered and how. He also slights readers when he offers an unsourced summary of another scholar’s idea without telling readers where to find the original, and far more thorough, development of that idea.

Kudos to Chris Matthew for calling him on his BS, and I wish more hosts would do the same to their guests (maybe if guests thought they might actually have to know what they are talking about, they would actually be prepared). If anything, I am so tired of people whose “style” is ranting about a topic and repeating the same tired “arguments” over and over again that this is delightful regardless of anything else. Notice that the guest (some guy named Kevin James) starts off all shouty as it seems to be his default volume setting.

h/t: John Cole

Update: Rather remarkably, NewBusters semi-defends James by noting that Matthews made a mistake about when the USS Cole attack took place and the fact that the other guest stated Bush had been in office for nine months prior to 9/11 (rather than closer to eight)–all rather thin gruel, if you ask me. Yes, Matthews was wrong–however, there is a rather substantial difference between basing an entire argument on an error and making a passing comment (and stating in that comment some lack of confidence that one is correct). Further, James, once cornered by the fact that he didn’t know what Chamberlain did would not own up to the fact. Really, trying to turn all this into some odd error equivalency argument as it one mistake cancels out the other is strained and absurd.

International police agency Interpol says Colombian officials did not tamper with computers which they claim provide proof Venezuela financed Farc rebels.

The hard drives were purportedly seized after a raid on a rebel camp in Ecuador at the beginning of March.

Although Interpol certified the authenticity of the files, not their contents, correspondents say their tests add credence to Colombian claims.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez vehemently dismissed the allegations.

He said the report was merely a “clown show” that “doesn’t deserve serious comment”.

[...]

Interpol head Ronald Noble said his team had not analysed the information contained on the drives, as Interpol’s remit extended only to certifying the authenticity of the documents, not their contents.

Mr Noble said that deep forensic analyses showed Colombia did not modify, delete or create any files, although it did not always follow internationally accepted methods when handling the computers.

The issue at hand is the exact relationship between the FARC and the government of Ecuador and Venezuela.

The Colombian (and US) governments are convinced that Chávez has been aiding the FARC. Chávez claims that any contacts with the FARC have been for humanitarian reasons linked to negotiations over hostages. Reaching a precise interpretation of the files is not clear-cut, however:

the files use codes and aliases throughout and nowhere is Mr Chavez mentioned by name.

Correction: Boz (who has been paying a great deal of attention to the laptop issue at his site) notes in the comments that Chávez’s name is mentioned in the documents, and therefore the BBC reporter got that wrong.

Update: The Interpol report itself can be found here.

David Nafther, blogging at CQ Politic’s Beyond the Dome, notes a recent speech in which John McCain addresses some of these issues: On Executive Power, McCain Says He’s No Bush.

In regards to signing statements (for my views on which go here, here and here):

“I will exercise my veto if I believe legislation passed by Congress is not in the nation’s best interests, but I will not subvert the purpose of legislation I have signed by making statements that indicate I will enforce only the parts of it I like.”

This is consistent with what he has said before, and I hope that should be be elected that he will, in fact, adhere to this position (more likely, if anything, because the Congress will certainly be controlled by the Democrats under such a scenario).

In regards to legislative-executive relations, the following would be remarkable (and the kind of thing that I would be shocked, in truth, if it happened if he is elected):

“I will ask Congress to grant me the privilege of coming before both houses to take questions, and address criticism, much the same as the Prime Minister of Great Britain appears regularly before the House of Commons.”

h/t: e-mail from a colleague.

And here’s the latest on WV:

John Edwards’s endorsement yesterday of Barack Obama leaves former Vice President Al Gore as the major Democratic figure still on the sidelines in the party’s presidential race.

[...]

Gore, who is one of the party’s superdelegates, has indicated he won’t give his endorsement until the primary contest is finished. His spokeswoman, Kalee Kreider, said
yesterday that Gore had no further comment.

I would argue that the main significance of the Edwards’ endorsement is that it fuels the perception that Obama has won, regardless of what Clinton says or is doing. (And, of course, he is a superdelegate and his pledged delegates are now released to vote as they choose, and we would assume that they would mostly align with Obama).

Along the same lines, an endorsement by Gore would pile onto the notion that Clinton has lost and that there is no miracle that will salvage the nomination for her.

“Introducing the new 500,000,000 bearer cheque for your convenience,” read a Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe full-page advert in the state daily, The Herald, displaying specimens of the new note.

Because who wants to take a wheelbarrow full of money downtown to buy bread? Ha! Trick question, there isn’t any bread. Again, in the Dictatorship for Dummies vein: when you have managed to utterly wreck your country’s economy and have created an utterly unnecessary humanitarian disaster because of nothing more than hubris and greed for power, let them know that you are looking out for the people’s convenience when you issue a very public reminder of just how bad the economy is.

Source: the AFP

More than 50,000 people may have died in the earthquake that devastated parts of China on Monday, state media say.

The warning came after the government confirmed the death toll had risen to 19,500, as rescue efforts continue to search for thousands still trapped.

About 10 million people across Sichuan province have been directly affected by the 7.9 quake, state media said.

The BBC has posted some amateur video of the quake and some of the immediate aftermath here.

Meanwhile, the LAT notes One-child policy adds to the grief of China quake.

Source of map: BBC. A more detailed map can be found here.