An attack from Iran has been anticipated by Israel and threatened by Iran: is this the start?
And what will be Israel’s retaliation? And what after that, and after that?
Does Hamas have a strategy?
Commenter “Art Deco” observes:
I don’t think Hamas ever had what you’d call a ‘strategy’, unless there were co-ordinate campaigns planned which Iran and Hezbollah never implemented. It’s what Martin Peretz described 40 years ago in a review of a play, “A crazed Arab to be sure, but crazed in the particular ways of his culture. He is intoxicated by language, cannot discern fantasy from reality, and assuages himself with a momentarily satisfying but ultimately ineffectual act of bloodlust”.
I also wonder whether there was a larger plan to simultaneously include Hezbollah and Iran, and perhaps the West Bank as well. In a surprise attack this multi-pronged approach might have been even more devastating to Israel. But either it was considered too much and likely to turn the world against the Palestinians and their ally Iran, or the attackers got their signals crossed, or it was never planned that way in the first place.
But I disagree that there was no strategy in the October 7 attack. There was plenty of strategy. The Palestinians have known for many many decades that it is to their advantage to provoke retaliation from Israel though terrorism and then emphasize their own suffering – with numbers – in order to turn world opinion even further from support of Israel. There are so many propaganda advantages, and this is above all else a propaganda war.
Back in November, even the Wapo was acknowledging this [emphasis mine]:
The evidence, described by more than a dozen current and former intelligence and security officials from four Western and Middle Eastern countries, reveals an intention by Hamas planners to strike a blow of historic proportions, in the expectation that the group’s actions would compel an overwhelming Israeli response. … After breaching the Israeli border in some 30 places, Hamas militants staged a mass slaughter of soldiers and civilians in at least 22 Israeli villages, towns and military outposts and then drew Israeli defenders into gun battles that continued for more than a day.
… Some militants carried enough food, ammunition and equipment to last several days, officials said, and bore instructions to continue deeper into Israel if the first wave of attacks succeeded, potentially striking larger Israeli cities.
The assault teams managed to penetrate as far as Ofakim, an Israeli town about 15 miles from the Gaza Strip and about half the distance between the enclave and the West Bank. One unit carried reconnaissance information and maps suggesting an intention to continue the assault up to the border of the West Bank, according to two senior Middle Eastern intelligence officials and one former U.S. official with detailed knowledge of the evidence. Hamas had been increasing its outreach to West Bank militants in recent months, although the group says it did not notify its West Bank allies of its Oct. 7 plans in advance. …
Hamas meticulously planned and prepared for a massacre of Israeli civilians on a scale that was highly likely to provoke Israel’s government into sending troops into Gaza, analysts said. Indeed, Hamas leaders have publicly expressed a willingness to accept heavy losses — potentially including the deaths of many Gazan civilians living under Hamas rule.
“Will we have to pay a price? Yes, and we are ready to pay it,” Ghazi Hamad, a member of the Hamas politburo, told Beirut’s LCBI television in an interview aired on Oct. 24. “We are called a nation of martyrs, and we are proud to sacrifice martyrs.”
And to even exaggerate the numbers and publicize them to the Western MSM, which will spread the propaganda around to great effect.
“They were very clear-eyed as to what would happen to Gaza on the day after,” said a senior Israeli military official with access to sensitive intelligence, including interrogations with Hamas fighters and intercepted communications. “They wanted to buy their place in history — a place in the history of jihad — at the expense of the lives of many people in Gaza.” …
…“They planned a second phase, including in major Israeli cities and military bases,” said a senior Israeli official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss classified intelligence. …
“Hamas knew Israel would strike back hard. That was the point,” Katz said. “To Hamas, Palestinian suffering is a critical component in bringing about the instability and global outrage it seeks to exploit.”
Even if its current leadership is effectively destroyed, she said, Hamas and its followers will continue to regard Oct. 7 as a victory. That’s partly because the group unquestionably succeeded in focusing the world’s attention on the Palestinian conflict, she said.
“It’s the first time I can remember that Hamas has become so prominent on a global scale,” Katz said. “So many people have already forgotten Oct. 7 because Hamas immediately changed the discussion. It put the focus on Israel, not themselves. And that’s exactly what they wanted.”
It wouldn’t have mattered that Hamas “changed the discussion” if so many in the West didn’t cooperate in that endeavor. But all of that was not an accident; it was Hamas’ strategy all along. The only question is whether Israel will give up in the face of all of the opprobrium. I don’t think they will, for the simple reason that their survival is at stake and now just about everyone in Israel knows it.
None of this is new, and none of it is specific to Hamas only. It was the strategy of the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam War (written by John McCain in 2013):
Giap was a master of logistics, but his reputation rests on more than that. His victories were achieved by a patient strategy that he and Ho Chi Minh were convinced would succeed—an unwavering resolve to suffer immense casualties and the near total destruction of their country to defeat any adversary, no matter how powerful. “You will kill 10 of us, we will kill one of you,” Ho told the French, “but in the end, you will tire of it first.”
Giap executed that strategy with an unbending will.
Plus this from Bui Tin, who had been a colonel on the general staff of the North Vietnamese army:
[The American antiwar movement] was essential to our strategy. Support for the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. …
The conscience of America was part of its war-making capability, and we were turning that power in our favor. America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win.
It wasn’t just American opinion, either. Much of the West turned against that war, and the MSM certainly did so as well.
Knife attack in Sydney [scroll down for UPDATE]
A man only identified so far as a 40-year-old killed 6 people and injured eight others in a knife attack in a Sydney mall:
The man stabbed shoppers as he moved through the shopping centre – including a mother and her nine-month-old baby.
– Video footage appears to show a shopper confronting the attacker on an escalator in the centre by holding a bollard [see this] towards him.
– Emergency services were called to Westfield Bondi Junction at around 3.30pm, following reports that multiple people had been stabbed.
– A female police officer who was nearby went into the centre alone and approached the attacker who had by this point moved to level five of the shopping centre.
– The officer shot the attacker after he turned to face her, raised a knife and lunged at her.
– The officer conducted CPR on the attacker until the arrival of paramedics, who worked on the man; however, he could not be revived.
Knives can be very very deadly, and of course just about everyone possesses one. Five of the six dead are women; I don’t know how many of the injured are women. Did the killer target women, or is it just that most of the mall shoppers were women?
In addition, we have this statement:
Police did confirm the attacker acted alone and was known to them. They also said that they do not believe his motive was related to terrorism.
“If it is the person we believe it is, we don’t have fear for that person holding an ideation,” Webb said.
“In other words, that it’s not a terrorism incident.
“We believe that this person acted alone and there’s no ongoing threat to the community.”
I’ll believe it when you tell me more about the attacker – his name and his history, for starters. He could be a random crazy. Or he could indeed be a terrorist, although a free-lancer.
The baby is in critical condition; the mother has died. Absolutely horrific.
The police officer who shot the killer is reported to have been at the mall on an unrelated matter. It’s a good thing she was there, because the death toll almost undoubtedly would have been higher if she hadn’t been already on the scene.
It might have been lower, however, if some of the regular shoppers had been armed, or if the assailant had the notion that they might be. Gun laws in Australia are quite strict:
In the last two decades of the 20th century, following several high-profile killing sprees, the federal government coordinated more restrictive firearms legislation with all state governments.
Gun laws were largely aligned in 1996 by the National Firearms Agreement. In two federally funded gun buybacks and voluntary surrenders and State Governments’ gun amnesties before and after the Port Arthur Massacre, more than a million firearms were collected and destroyed, possibly a third of the national stock.[1]
A person must have a firearm licence to possess or use a firearm. Licence holders must demonstrate a “genuine reason” (which does not include self-defence) for holding a firearm licence[2] and must not be a “prohibited person”. All firearms must be registered by serial number to the owner.
In December 2023 National Cabinet agreed to implement a national firearms register within four years.
None of the articles I’ve seen mention whether the mall was a gun-free zone.
RIP to the victims.
UPDATE: Random crazed killer it is: the perp had a history of mental illness (schizophrenia) and obsession with weapons, especially knives.
We now have pretty good drugs for schizophrenia, but it’s not unusual for patients to make a decision to go off them without telling anyone. It’s possible that happened in this case, although that’s a total guess on my part.
Five women were killed and the sole male victim is said to have been a security guard. This makes me wonder once again whether the killer was targeting women.
And now, just a couple of minutes after writing the above paragraph, I read this:
Chilling footage showed Cauchi ignore a man who had bravely attempted to confront him during the attack.
Speculation has been raised the knifeman had been targetting women.
Today show host Karl Stefanovic said he had ‘no words’.
‘I don’t care what the excuses are, and I hope there’s a special place in hell reserved for him, given the fact that he walked past men, and didn’t do anything about it and attacked women,’ he said.
‘A woman with a baby.’
Seems to be young women he was intent on attacking – plus the baby. I haven’t read anything describing the victims who survived (they are now reported to number 12), and whether they were young women, too. One of the murder victims was Dawn Singleton, 25, the daughter of a wealthy businessman. She was engaged to marry her childhood sweetheart.
The killing of Dexter Reed: the police as Israel
In Chicago, a black man named Dexter Reed was killed by police after he shot one of them during a traffic stop. The media covered it in the usual manner:
Three weeks ago, Dexter Reed out of Chicago shot by police during a traffic stop. He is Black, a hundred shots were fired. Here’s the family.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Why does the police keep doing this to young Black African men? If he was supposed to be pulled over for a traffic stop, why did they have four guns pointed at him? He was scared.
BANKS: He had just bought his new car three days before that and he was just riding around in his car.
He said “Mom, I’m going for a ride.” And they killed him. They killed him. Thank you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WATTERS: Reed’s family is upset and we’re so sorry. There’s nothing like losing a child. But they’re not telling you the truth.
Dexter Reed opened fire on police. After he was pulled over, he shot at police first and they returned fire. His gun was recovered and he’d emptied his clip.
We’ll show you the video in a second. But look at these headlines. Seatbelt violation ends with Black man dead on Chicago street after cops fired nearly 100 bullets.
Police fired 96 shots in 41 seconds killing Black man during traffic stop.
Deadly Chicago traffic stop where police fired 96 shots raises serious questions about use of force.
Not one of those headlines tells you that Reed is the one who started the shootout.
Watters also points out that some of the officers were black.
At this point, The Chicago Tribune is calling for some cool:
The first and most obvious lesson: If you’re stopped by police and asked to roll down your window or get out of your car, do so. And if you shoot at police, they will — and should — shoot back. Lost by too many in the anger over Reed’s death was the fact that he shot a police officer who, as Mayor Brandon Johnson properly noted on Tuesday following release of the multiple videos offering views of what happened, was lucky to escape with the injuries he did.
But according to the left and much of the MSM, police are not allowed to protect their own lives, much less the lives of the public. The paramount concern of the left much of the media is protecting the lives of people – often criminals – who don’t cooperate with traffic stops and who attack police during them.
Why do I liken the attitude of the left and the MSM towards the police as akin to their attitude about Israel? Because even self-defense is not allowed, if it ends up causing the death of someone labeled as “oppressed,” no matter how violent, threatening, and guilty that person (or group) is. There’s also similar language from those doing the criticizing [emphasis mine]:
… COPA Chief Administrator Andrea Kersten felt free to share her opinions far and wide, including during a conveniently timed appearance at the City Club. Among the most questionable of those was her view (injudiciously expressed in advance of a completed investigation) that the cops’ response to Reed’s multiple shots at them wasn’t “proportional.” Police shot 96 times while Reed fired considerably fewer shots, although there have been conflicting reports of how many.
So, are we now going to criticize — or, as some want, prosecute — police who fail to count how many bullets are flying their way before shooting back and ensuring the number of shots is “proportional?” Even after a fellow officer has been shot? We are asking officers to risk their lives every day on the streets of a city awash in guns, many of them illegal. (Reed was facing past charges for illegal gun use.) Requiring cops to respond “proportionately” when someone is shooting at them not only is unreasonable; it will make recruiting new officers even harder.
A Chicago police officer’s job only has gotten more dangerous. Cops were shot or shot at 68 times in 2023 versus 55 times in 2022, WGN-TV reported. The number of people shot by police dropped over that same time frame to 11 from 18.
The care taken by police doesn’t matter to the forces determined to demonize them. And the people who suffer most from this are the black residents of Chicago. But the critics don’t care when there are lies to be told, facts to be omitted, and propaganda points to be made.
Open thread 4/13/24
Great story; great storyteller.
Do people understand war anymore?
I think many many people these days do not understand what war is. The terrible nature of war itself has combined with modern “smart” weapons and humanitarian impulses to dampen the resolve of many people in Western nations, even against the most vicious and destructive of enemies.
The two world wars of the 20th century caused an enormous amount of suffering and carnage and were fought for the most part by and in developed Western nations. Those wars were characterized by imprecise bombing that killed many civilians, and then the use of two atomic weapons to end the war. Then, by the time of the Gulf War, technology had advanced to the point where we began to be able to bomb more precisely, and that ability has only increased since then to the point of being able to destroy a single building without damaging adjacent ones.
So people – especially young people – have become accustomed to the idea that a war can be waged by only killing the bad guys, and even as few of them as possible. Such a thing, however, is not possible.
The situation has the unintended effect of allowing terrorists to win wars by their tactic of putting civilians in harms’ way. The Palestinians’ entire war strategy rests on this, and most of the West cooperates. Thus, the unrealistic expectations held by so many modern Westerners about war end up enabling evil to flourish.
Commenter “Shadow” writes:
I’m reminded of this piece by Daniel Greenfield that I read over a decade ago and never forgot. https://www.danielgreenfield.org/2012/11/war-is-answer.html
Israel kicked the can down the road for too long. Its fear of killing civilians emboldened terrorists to use human shields, and prolonged the conflict because it could never get enough of the bad guys. It should have been over years ago. Now people on both sides are suffering today. You cannot fight a war kindly. You perhaps cannot even fight a war morally in any normal sense of the world – even the Allies did terrible things. War demands the sacrifice of the individual for the greater good. There is no way around it.
“The plan for perpetual peace is really a plan for perpetual war.”
“The humanitarian impulse makes the anti-humanitarian impulse inevitable. The more precisely we try to kill terrorists, the more ingeniously the terrorists blend into the civilian population and employ human shields. The more we try not to kill civilians, the more civilians we are forced to kill. That is the equal and opposite reaction of the humanitarian formula.”
If Israel had heeded this warning years ago, the UN would have been angry, of course, but Israel wouldn’t be in the position it’s in now.
And academia and the internet spread the stupidity around. Widespread historical ignorance does its part, too.
Spambot of the day
Succinct and heartfelt praise:
F*ckin* awesome things here.
Why oh why did the clock readout on my phone have to turn pink?
My phone recently updated, and to my surprise the time readout on my lock screen turned bright pink. Barbie pink.
In the last phone update before that, the numbers had turned thick and clumsy, whereas before they had been elegantly thin and yet still readable. I didn’t like the change, but it didn’t bother me unduly. But now they were thick and pink, a sort of ghastly pink that only a 4-year-old could love.
I finally found a way to change it back, but it took quite a while and some searching to figure it out.
So, why do programmers do this to us? It seems, as best I can reconstruct what happened, that the new “improved” idea was to take a color from the photo on each person’s lockscreen and use that color for the clock numbers for that person as well. And it turns out that there’s a fair amount – although not an overwhelming amount – of pink on the photo I use, which is of my grandchildren.
Changes such as this may seem small, and they are small. But they are often jarring and unwanted. At least there was an option to turn it back to a neutral color.
Chris Rufo on the plagiarism accusations against black female professors
Commenter “AesopFan” helpfully offered this tweet from Christopher Rufo, relevant to this post from yesterday concerning whether black female professors are disproportionately involved in plagiarism:
One of the ironies to this accusation is that I have explicitly asked my sources to review the work of white and Asian scholars and, thus far, the verified plagiarism cases have been predominantly from black women. This is not dispositive, nor is it a systematic study, but it is… https://t.co/327zGFmaP8
— Christopher F. Rufo ?? (@realchrisrufo) April 10, 2024
I was wondering whether there had been an attempt to study this systematically, and that answers the question: sporadically but not in comprehensive research.
As commenter “OBloodyHell” adds, however, that if such research is ever done, then:
1 — if it turns out that it is a racially-founded problem, it will be suppressed.
2 — if it turns out that it is happening across the board, well, then it will be suppressed because… face it, it’ll be mostly liberals doing it.
3 — what won’t be found is and evidence that anyone is being oppressed. But that will not be the merdia spin no matter what happens.
(I assume that “merdia” is a purposeful misspelling, so I didn’t correct it.)
I will add that, if #1 or #2 turn out to be the case, and these results are reported, the plagiarism will be minimized in importance (as happened with Claudine Gay) or even considered an outdated concern of an oppressive culture devised by evil white males. This would be in line with similar attacks on “meritocracy.”
Open thread 4/12/24
Why is Michigan such a big deal to Biden?
Commenter “MrsX” asks:
What good will Michigan do Biden if many other swing states swing against him? Has the general sentiment in the US moved so decisively against Israel that Biden will gain more votes from supporting Hamas than he’ll lose from abandoning Israel?
Polls vary markedly on the question. For example, we have this from a Gallup poll conducted from March 1-20. The question asked was “Do you approve or disapprove of the military action Israel has taken in Gaza?” The results were 55% disapproval and 36% approval.
But that’s a way to ask the question that doesn’t probe into what the disapproval is about – for example, it could be because Israel is being too timid and careful rather than too violent. I actually don’t think that’s what most people would say, but it would be nice to know, and the pollsters don’t appear to have asked what would be an obvious question.
Or, many people – including me – aren’t happy about wars, but that includes any war, and though they’re unhappy that Israel has to kill people, they’re even more unhappy with Hamas and realize that Israel’s counter-attack is a grim necessity.
Contrast that poll with this one taken by Pew in late February, slightly before the Gallup poll but rather close in time:
Months into the Israel-Hamas war, roughly six-in-ten Americans (58%) say Israel’s reasons for fighting Hamas are valid. But how Israel is carrying out its response to Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack receives a more mixed evaluation. About four-in-ten U.S. adults (38%) say Israel’s conduct of the war has been acceptable, and 34% say it has been unacceptable. The remaining 26% are unsure. …
When asked about Hamas’ reasons for fighting Israel, far fewer Americans (22%) describe them as valid. And just 5% of U.S. adults say the way Hamas carried out its Oct. 7 attack on Israel was acceptable, while 66% describe it as completely unacceptable.
However, I have little doubt that the constant drumbeat of anti-Israel propaganda in the MSM has reduced support for Israel; the country is presented as vengeful and out to get civilians and children, plus guilty of “disproportionately” killing based on Hamas figures (which are often not identified as such). Hear that often enough and it penetrates, as Hamas and the MSM know.
But back to Michigan. In that state, there are three times as many Muslims as Jews (see this and this for comparative statistics). So that’s a rather obvious metric explaining Biden’s stance, because Michigan is a swing state and many Muslims there – numerous enough to make a difference – have pledged to not vote for him if he isn’t harder on Israel.
But what of other swing states? I think there’s also a calculation by the Biden administration and other Democrats that they can count on Trump-hatred to temper the tendency of voters in other swing states to swing away from Biden because of his treatment of Israel. Or they believe that Biden’s pro-Israel rhetoric at the beginning of the war, when more people were paying attention, will be the prevailing perception of voters. They believe that only some Jewish Democrats are likely to abandon Biden because of his bad treatment of Israel, and they are a small group in terms of the voting population.
By the way, that Gallup poll didn’t reveal a lot of voter love for Biden, whatever it may have said about approval of the Gazan war: “just 21% of independents and 16% of Republicans approve of his performance on the issue.”
NOTE: At a future date, I plan to write a post scrunching the numbers of Jewish voters in swing state versus Muslim voters.
Are black women disproportionately involved in plagiarism in academia, or there a “witch hunt” against them?
One side speaks:
Chris Rufo & his allies are leading a plagiarism witch hunt and creating the false impression that Black women disproportionately plagiarize. Universities like Harvard must take back control of the narrative and conduct plagiarism reviews of all faculty.https://t.co/Iw6tBYKHKg pic.twitter.com/DoIYM2cjJl
— Maya Bodnick (@MayaBodnick) April 9, 2024
“Witch hunt” is an interesting term. It harks back to the Salem witch trials – and similar proceedings that were far more widespread in Europe than in the US – that were prosecuted for hundreds of years starting in the 1400s:
In the early modern period, from about 1400 to 1775, about 100,000 people were prosecuted for witchcraft in Europe and British America. Between 40,000 and 60,000 were executed. The witch-hunts were particularly severe in parts of the Holy Roman Empire. Prosecutions for witchcraft reached a high point from 1560 to 1630, during the Counter-Reformation and the European wars of religion. Among the lower classes, accusations of witchcraft were usually made by neighbors, and women made formal accusations as much as men did. Magical healers or ‘cunning folk’ were sometimes prosecuted for witchcraft, but seem to have made up a minority of the accused. Roughly 80% of those convicted were women, most of them over the age of 40. In some regions, convicted witches were burnt at the stake.
There is no dearth of theories (including feminist ones) to explain what was going on and why, and who were the targets and why. There is little doubt that most of the people convicted of witchcraft were not even attempting to practice witchcraft, although there are theories (highly disputed) that at least a small number may have been part of some sort of pagan witchcraft cult.
However, plagiarism and related academic deceptions are real. And they are usually quite provable, and not by such ancient rituals as trial by water. And there is little question that there has been a recent spate of solid accusations of plagiarism against a number of black female academics:
Right-wing activists have levied new plagiarism accusations on a monthly basis. In Dec., conservative activist Christopher F. Rufo and Christopher Brunet reported on accusations against former Harvard University President Claudine Gay. Then, in Jan., the conservative Washington Free Beacon covered a complaint filed against Sherri A. Charleston, Harvard’s Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer. In Feb., anonymous bad actors accused Harvard Extension School administrator Shirley R. Greene of plagiarism. And finally in March, Rufo reported on allegations against Harvard assistant professor of Sociology Christina J. Cross.
Conservatives have emphasized that all four of the accused are Black women.
“Let’s not ignore the pattern,” Rufo wrote on X. “This is the fourth black female CRT/DEI scholar to be accused of plagiarism at Harvard.”
Others have pounced on these allegations, arguing that they provide evidence these women were diversity hires in the first place. U.S. Senator J.D. Vance (R-OH) took to X and argued that Gay “got her job not through merit, but because she checked a box.”
Republicans pounce!
More:
Clearly, the right has an agenda: crafting a narrative that Black academics, particularly women and those who study race, disproportionately plagiarize.
The author goes on to mention a bunch of white academics who have been accused of plagiarism. I have little doubt that white people in academia also commit plagiarism and I doubt anyone is suggesting otherwise. Several issues come to mind, however. The first is how common plagiarism is in academia as a whole. Is the entire enterprise riddled with it, or is it rare? With recent advances in plagiarism-detecting software, it wouldn’t be all that hard to find out not just the numbers of accusations of plagiarism (which could be skewed in various ways), but the actual incidence of plagiarism. Is anyone doing that sort of research?
Also at issue are the racial/sexual demographics of the problem: are women disproportionately involved (in comparison to their percentages in academia)? Are black people disproportionately involved? Is any other race group disproportionately involved? Are professors in certain fields disproportionately involved? Are professors at a certain level of achievement disproportionately involved? Are professors hired during certain years disproportionately involved?
All of these are interesting questions and I don’t know whether anyone is researching the answers. The Crimson article I cited at the beginning of this post makes a similar suggestion (after the author has blasted the right, of course) and I agree with her suggestion.
Meanwhile, in regard to the latest person accused of plagiarism, economist Lisa D. Cook, we have this:
Lisa D. Cook is one of the world’s most powerful economists. She taught economics at Harvard University and Michigan State University and served on the Obama administration’s Council of Economic Advisers before being appointed, in 2022, to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, which controls the interest rates and money supply of the United States.
Despite her pedigree, questions have long persisted about her academic record. Her publication history is remarkably thin for a tenured professor, and her published work largely focuses on race activism rather than on rigorous, quantitative economics. Her nomination to the Fed required Vice President Kamala Harris to cast a tie-breaking vote; by contrast, her predecessor in the seat, Janet Yellen, now Treasury secretary, was confirmed unanimously.
The quality of her scholarship has also received criticism. Her most heralded work, 2014’s “Violence and Economic Activity: Evidence from African American Patents, 1870 to 1940,” examined the number of patents by black inventors in the past, concluding that the number plummeted in 1900 because of lynchings and discrimination. Other researchers soon discovered that the reason for the sudden drop in 1900 was that one of the databases Cook relied on stopped collecting data in that year. The true number of black patents, one subsequent study found, might be as much as 70 times greater than Cook’s figure, effectively debunking the study’s premise.
Cook also seems to have consistently inflated her own credentials.
In the case of Cook, it seems plagiarism is just a part of it. And she’s not just any old professor, she’s been a star for quite some time in terms of appointments to prestigious positions in the world of economics.