AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL ASSOCIATION- Call for applications: “Mentoring the Mentors” workshop.

 

Dear DAVID,   The APA will host a “Mentoring the Mentors” workshop on Saturday, April 17, 2021. Kathryn Sophia Belle, Associate Professor of Philosophy and African American Studies at Penn State University, will facilitate the one-day virtual workshop.   "Mentoring the Mentors" Saturday, April 17, 2021 11 a.m. - 4 p.m. ET Virtual   This workshop is for faculty and graduate students who serve as mentors of undergraduate students who are interested in pursuing further study in philosophy, particularly those who mentor undergraduates from underrepresented minority groups. The workshop aims to support mentors as they guide their students through academic philosophy and potentially on to graduate school in philosophy. Past workshops have included information on how to prepare a graduate school application, how to set healthy boundaries in a mentor/mentee relationship, and how to address the challenges unique to students from underrepresented identities in philosophy.   Originally designed to support mentors of students who attend undergraduate diversity institutes in philosophy, “Mentoring the Mentors” spends some time specifically addressing how to support students of color, women, LGBTQ+ students, students with disabilities, and other students from underrepresented identities in philosophy. “Mentoring the Mentors” is generously funded by a grant from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.   To apply, please fill out the application form no later than March 5, 2021, with information about your mentorship experiences and hopes for the workshop. Selected participants will be notified no later than March 22, 2021.   If this workshop is not the right fit for you but you know others who might be interested, please encourage them to apply!   Please direct any questions about the event to APA Program Assistant Lucy Pawliczek at lucypawliczek@apaonline.org.   All the best,   Amy Ferrer Executive Director

The American Philosophical Association University of Delaware 31 Amstel Avenue, Newark, DE 19716

JUST "ONE" EXAMPLE OF DONALD TRUMPS DETERMINATION TO STAY IN POWER, NO MATTER WHAT.

 

The following exchange occurred during a White House Press conference on Wednesday, Sept 24, 2020.

 “Win, lose, or draw in this election, will you commit here today for a peaceful transferal of power after the election?” reporter Brian Karem asked Donald Trump, who didn’t even attempt to give the impression he cares whatsoever about preserving democracy. “Well, we’re going to have to see what happens,” Trump said. “You know that. I’ve been complaining very strongly about the ballots, and the ballots are a disaster.” Pressed again to “commit to making sure that there’s a peaceful transferal of power,” Trump responded, “Get rid of the ballots and...we’ll have a very peaceful—there won’t be a transfer, frankly. There will be a continuation. The ballots are out of control. You know it. You know who knows it better than anybody else? The Democrats know better than anybody else.”

''...Pressed again to “commit to making sure that there’s a peaceful transferal of power,” Trump responded, “Get rid of the ballots and...we’ll have a very peaceful—there won’t be a transfer, frankly. There will be a continuation."

IN OTHER WORDS, DO WHAT I TELL YOU AND WE WON'T NEED A TRANSFER OF POWER, JUST A PEACEFUL CONTINUATION.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, OR EVEN MINIMAL JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PHRASE:

"The ballots are out of control. You know it. You know who knows it better than anybody else? The Democrats know better than anybody else.” 

PERHAPS YOU REMEMBER THE FOLLOWING FROM AN ARTICLE PUBLISHED ON THIS WEBSITE:

"EMPTY" ASSERTION-  ANY STATEMENT, (WRITTEN OR ORAL), THAT CLAIMS TO BE FACTUAL, BUT HAS LITTLE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE OR DATA THAT CAN WITHSTAND PROPER SCRUTINY.  In many cases, the act of criticizing the Assertion is discouraged, AND IT MUST BE ACCEPTED WITHOUT QUALIFICATION.

DO YOU THINK THAT APPLIES HERE?

QUIZ TIME! CAN YOU MATCH THE NUMBERS WITH THE OUTCOME?

 THE YEAR IS 2100. HIGH SCHOOL FRESHMAN.

WELCOME TO AMERICAN HISTORY. TODAY WE ARE GOING TO BEGIN OUR STUDY

OF EARLY 21ST CENTURY POLITICS. TO SEE HOW MUCH YOU ALREADY KNOW, BELOW

ARE THE RESULTS OF THE 2008,2012,2016,2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS. YOUR JOB IS

TO MATCH THE NUMBERS IN THE FIRST THREE COLUMNS.

- % OF THE NATIONAL VOTE FOR ALL 8 DEM./REP. CANDIDATES.

- WINNERS VICTORY MARGIN IN % OF VOTE.

-  WINNERS VICTORY MARGIN IN # OF VOTES.

WITH THE CORRESPONDING OUTCOMES.

- # OF ELECTORAL VOTES FOR THE WINNER.

- # OF STATES CARRIED BY THE WINNER.

AFTER THEY ARE GRADED, WE WILL DISCUSS THE SIGNIFICANCE IF EACH. THERE

WILL BE A SPECIAL LOOK AT THE POSSIBILITY OF ELECTION FRAUD, AND SEE IF 

ANY OF THESE RESULTS LEND CREDENCE TO SUCH ACCUSATIONS. 

GOOD LUCK.

  BOTH CANDIDATES.                           WINNER.                                               WINNER.

   % NATIONAL VOTE                     VICTORY MARGIN %                         VICTORY MARGIN #

1- OBAMA, 2008, 52.9%                1-OBAMA, 2008, +7.2%                    1- OBAMA, 2008, +9,550,193

2- BIDEN, 2020, 51.3%                   2- BIDEN, 2020, +4.4%                     2- BIDEN, 2020, +7,058,637

3- OBAMA, 2012, 51.06%              3- OBAMA, 2012, +3.86                    3- OBAMA, 2012, +4,982,291

4- CLINTON, 2016, 48.18%           4-  TRUMP, 2016, -2.09%                   4- TRUMP, 2016, -2,868,686  

5- ROMNEY, 2012, 47.20%

6- TRUMP, 2020, 46.90%

7- TRUMP, 2016, 46.09%

8- MCCAIN, 2008, 45.70%

          WINNER.                                                                                          WINNER.

MOST ELECTORAL VOTES.                                                                CARRIED MOST STATES

365                                                                                                      30 + ME-02       

332                                                                                                            28 + DC + NE-02   

306                                                                                                            26 + DC    

304                                                                                                            25 + DC + NE-02    

QUIZ TIME! PART 2. SENATE RESULTS: 2008-2020.

NOW CLASS, YOU HAVE BEEN TESTED REGARDING THE PRESIDENTIAL RESULTS FROM 

2008-2020. BEFORE WE GO THROUGH THE RESULTS, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO ANALYZE 

THE ELECTION RESULTS FOR THE U.S. SENATE DURING THAT SAME PERIOD. FOR EXTRA 

CREDIT, WRITE AN ESSAY IDENTIFYING ANY RESULTS THAT MIGHT INDICATE ELECTION 

FRAUD, AND IF SO, HOW THEY MIGHT COINCIDE WITH PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION FRAUD 

FROM THE SAME ERA.

COLUMN 1- WHICH PARTY RECEIVED THE HIGHEST % OF THE POPULAR VOTE IN

THE SENATE ELECTIONS.

COLUMN 2- # OF SENATE SEATS CONTESTED.

COLUMN 3- THE # OF SEATS WON BY THE PARTY

WITH THE HIGHEST % OF THE NATIONAL VOTE , 

AND WHAT % THAT # REPRESENTS OF THE TOTAL 

# OF SEATS CONTESTED.

HIGHEST % OF VOTE.        # OF SEATS CONTESTED                           # AND % OF SEATS WON. 

                                                                                                                

1. 2018 DEM- 58.4%                                  33                                            22, 66.7%                                  

2. 2016 DEM- 53.8%                                  34                                            12, 35.3%

3. 2012 DEM- 53.7%                                  31                                            23, 74.2%

4. 2014 REP-  51.7%                                   36                                           24, 66.7%                                

5. 2008 DEM- 51.9%                                   35                                            20, 57.1%

6. 2020 REP- 50.6%                                    35                                            20, 57.1%     

7. 2010 REP- 48.2%                                    37                                            19, 51.4%