PREACHERS WHO PLAGIARIZE, AND A NEW VERSION OF VOTING.

THAT'S NEXT ON "IVORY TOWER."

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> WELCOME TO IVORY TOWER.

I'M BARBARA FOUGHT FROM SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY.

JOINING ME IN FOR THIS WEEK'S SHOW ARE: KRISTI ANDERSEN FROM SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY, BOB SPITZER FROM SUNY-CORTLAND, ANIRBAN ACHARYA, FROM LEMOYNE COLLEGE, AND NINA MOORE, FROM COLGATE UNIVERSITY.

OUR FIRST TOPIC UP IS GUN VIOLENCE.

HOW RESPONSIBLE SHOULD A GUN MANUFACTURER, OR A GUN SELLER BE, FOR WHAT SOMEONE DOES WITH THAT GUN?

A STATE JUDGE IN CALIFORNIA HAS RECENTLY RULED THAT THE SURVIVORS AND FAMILIES OF VICTIMS OF A SHOOTING AT A SYNAGOGUE CAN SUE SMITH AND WESSON WHO MADE THE GUN USED IN THAT ATTACK.

LIKEWISE THEY CAN SUE THE STORE THAT SOLD THE ASSAULT-STYLE SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLE.

BOB SPITZER IS OUR EXPERT ON GUNS.

UNPACK THIS DECISION FOR US.

>> WELL, THERE ARE THREE PARTS TO THIS STORY.

PART ONE IS IN 2005, CONGRESS PASSED THE LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS ACT WHICH PROVIDED SPECIAL AND UNIQUE LEGAL PROTECTIONS FOR THE GUN INDUSTRY AGAINST CIVIL LITIGATION.

THERE ARE SOME NARROW EXCEPTIONS IN THAT LAW.

IF A GUN DEALER, FOR EXAMPLE, WILLFULLY SELLS A GUN TO SOMEONE THAT THE DEALER KNOWS IS NOT ENTITLED LEGALLY TO BUY THE GUN, WELL, THAT COULD BE A BASIS FOR PROSECUTION.

BUT, OF COURSE, ALL YOU HAVE TO SAY IF DEFENSE IS I DIDN'T KNOW.

IT'S A VERY HIGH LEGAL STANDARD TO MEET.

IT'S A UNIQUE PROTECTION FOR THIS ONE INDUSTRY.

AND ESSENTIALLY IT WAS ENACTED BECAUSE THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION HAD THE MUSCLE TO GET IT THROUGH CONGRESS WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION.

THE SECOND PART IS IN THIS CALIFORNIA CASE, THEY'RE GOING AFTER SMITH AND WESSON ON THE ARGUMENT THAT THEY WERE NEGLIGENT IN THEIR MARKETING.

A GOOD EXAMPLE, NOT SPECIFICALLY FROM THE CALIFORNIA CASE, WAS WHEN ANOTHER GUN MANUFACTURER WOULD REGULARLY ADVERTISE ITS ASSAULT WEAPON AS "GETTING YOUR MAN CARD" THAT IS BUY THIS WEAPON, THIS WAR-LIKE MILITARY LOOKING WEAPON AND GET YOUR MAN CARD.

PROVE YOUR MASCULINITY, YOUR MANHOOD AND THAT HAS FED INTO A CASE GOING ON IN CONNECTICUT.

BUT THE THIRD PART OF THIS STORY IS THAT HERE IN THE EAST, NEW YORK AND CONNECTICUT, ARE USING A DIFFERENT LEGAL THEORY TO GO AFTER THE GUN INDUSTRY.

AND IT'S SOMETHING CALLED PUBLIC NUISANCE, WHICH IS NOT WELL KNOWN.

AND THEY'RE TRYING, ESSENTIALLY, TO DO AN END AROUND THE FEDERAL LAW TO GO AFTER THE COMPANIES FOR THEIR IRRESPONSIBLE ALLEGEDLY RESPONSIBLE MARKETING PRACTICES.

THE MANUFACTURING AND DESIGN OF SOME OF THE WEAPONS LENDS ITSELF PRETTY EASILY TO CONVERTING THEM FROM SEMI-AUTOMATIC TO FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS WHICH IS SOMETHING YOU CAN FORESTALL WHEN YOU MANUFACTURE IT IF YOU WANT TO.

AND THERE IS SOME VULNERABILITY THERE THE WITH THE NEW LITIGATION STRATEGY BEING PURSUED IN CONNECTICUT IN RELATION TO THE SANDY HOOK MASSACRE FROM SEVERAL YEARS AGO.

AND IN STATE LAW HERE IN NEW YORK.

SO THERE IS A NEW LITIGATION PUSH AGAINST GUN MANUFACTURERS.

>> YEAH, I WANT TO HONE IN A LITTLE BIT ON SOMETHING THAT YOU TALKED ABOUT, BOB, IN RELATION TO THE 2005 ACT.

AS IT TURNS OUT, ACTUALLY, THE MOST PROGRESSIVE PERSON IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE, BERNIE SANDERS, ACTUALLY VOTED FOR THAT BILL, SO DID TWO OUT OF THREE SENATORS AND ALSO MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE.

AND BERNIE SANDERS' RATIONALE IN 2005 AND THEN AGAIN IN 2015 IS THAT IT MAKES AS MUCH SENSE TO GO AFTER GUN MANUFACTURERS FOR MURDERERS WHO USE GUNS AS IT DOES TO GO AFTER MANUFACTURERS OF HAMMERS WHO USE HAMMERS TO MURDER PEOPLE.

AND TO HONE IN ON ANOTHER POINT THAT YOU MAKE, THE 2005 ACT DOES OFFER SOME NARROW EXCEPTIONS, BUT OTHERWISE IT GIVES A PRETTY BROAD IMMUNITY TO BOTH GUN MANUFACTURERS AND ALSO DEALERS WHEN IT COMES DO TO CIVIL LIABILITY.

AND AS YOU NOTED, IT LAYS OUT SOME NARROW EXCEPTIONS.

BUT, NEGLIGENCE IS NOT ONE OF THOSE.

AND SO SOME OF THE CHALLENGES BEYOND THE ONES THAT YOU'VE MENTIONED, FOCUS SPECIFICALLY ON CONGRESS' POWER UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE TO BE ABLE TO LIMIT WHAT JUDGES CAN LOOK AT.

SOME OF THE OTHERS HAVE SAID CONGRESS HAS BASICALLY OVERSTEPPED ITS POWERS BY INTERFERING IN STATES RIGHTS UNDER THE NINTH AMENDMENT AND THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION HAS ARGUED THAT CONGRESS DOESN'T HAVE THE POWER TO LIMIT WHAT JUDGES CAN LOOK AT.

SO ALTHOUGH PERHAPS IN THEORY THIS IS A GOOD THING TO TRY TO STOP THE SORT OF SPREAD OF WEAPONS AND THE CATASTROPHES THAT WE'VE SEEN.

BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S ON SHAKY GROUND.

>> YEAH, I THINK THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF BACK GROUND FROM THAT LAWFUL COMMERCE ARMS ACT OF 2005.

IN 1990 AND THEN 2000, A LOT OF CITIES WERE SUING GUN MANUFACTURERS AND DEALERS.

SO THIS WAS A REACTION BY THE GUN LOBBY, MEANING THE NRA.

AND AS BOB AND YOU POINT OUT, THAT THERE IS AN EXCEPTION THAT YES, THEY ARE SHIELDED FROM LAWSUITS.

BUT THEY CANNOT KNOWINGLY VIOLATE THE LAW.

WHAT I WANT TO ATTRACT ATTENTION TO OUR VIEWERS TO IS THIS VERY INTERESTING COURT CASE ARISING OUT OF PENNSYLVANIA SUPERIOR COURT WHERE THE COURT MAKE A VERY INTERESTING DECISION.

IT DIDN'T GO BY THE EXCEPTION ROUTE, BUT IT RATHER SAID THAT SHIELDING GUN MAKERS FROM LITIGATION THAT IS GROUNDED IN COMMON LAW, VIOLATES THE 10th AMENDMENT.

THAT'S A PRETTY BIG BLUDGEON AGAINST THE ENTIRE BODY OF LAW BECAUSE IT IS NOT SAYING THAT WE ARE GOING TO LOOK AT THE EXCEPTIONS BUT IT IS SAYING THE ENTIRETY NEEDS TO FALL SO WE'LL SEE HOW THAT MOVES OUT.

>> KRISTI, YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS?

>> WELL, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR BOB, ESSENTIALLY, AND MAYBE YOU'VE ANSWERED THIS IN A SENSE.

AND IT'S CONFUSING TO ME HOW THE GUN INDUSTRY CAN BE SO SHIELDED FROM LAWSUITS WHEN OTHER INDUSTRIES-- I'M THINKING ABOUT TOBACCO IN PARTICULAR, OR THE PESTICIDE INDUSTRY OR, YOU KNOW, MAKERS OF CHILDREN'S FURNITURE OR STROLLERS THAT KILL KIDS OR INJURE KIDS I DON'T UNDERSTAND AT A FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL, WHY THE GUN INDUSTRY HAS, WHAT SEEMS TO ME, TO HAVE A POSITION OF PRIVILEGE THAT'S DIFFERENT FROM ALL THESE OTHER INDUSTRIES.

>> WELL, THE SHORT ANSWER IS THAT IT'S POLITICS AND PUBLIC POLICY.

IT'S WITHIN THE PUBLIC POLICY DOMAIN OF CONGRESS TO ENACT THE INVESTIGATION IT DID TO PROVIDE SPECIAL PROTECTION.

ADVOCATES FOR THE LAW ARGUED THAT THERE IS A SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT AT PLAY AND THE ARGUMENT SAYS THAT IF YOU RUN THE GUN COMPANIES INTO BANKRUPTCY, GUNS WON'T BE AVAILABLE TO PEOPLE WHO, TO CIVILIANS WHO WANT THEM AND THEREFORE THEY'RE DE FACTO DEPRIVED OF THEIR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT.

>> THAT'S THE ARGUMENT?

IF THERE IS ONE LAWSUIT THERE COULD BE A MILLION LAWSUITS AND NO GUNS WOULD BE MANUFACTURED AND WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO ENJOY OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS?

>> THAT'S THE ARGUMENT MADE 15 YEARS AGO.

LET ME ADD ONE OTHER THING APROPOS OF NINA'S RIGHTS.

THESE CASES HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO.

THE LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS IN CALIFORNIA OR EVEN HERE IN NEW YORK OR CONNECTICUT, I THINK, IS VERY SLIM, BUT THERE IS SOMETHING ARGUABLY EQUALLY IMPORTANT, WHICH IS THE PROCESS OF DISCOVERY; THAT IS TO SAY, FOR A JUDGE TO SAY THESE CASES CAN GO AHEAD MEANS THAT THOSE BRINGING THE CASE CAN GET THOUSANDS OF DOCUMENTS FROM THE COMPANY AND ARE HOPING TO FIND SOME VERY DAMNING AND INCRIMINATING INFORMATION.

AND I THINK THEY WILL.

THAT PROCESS BY ITSELF COULD ARGUABLY AS IMPORTANT AS A POSITIVE VERDICT FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.

>> I THINK ULTIMATELY THIS, TO YOUR QUESTION, AND I REALLY CAN'T ADD TOO MUCH TO WHAT BOB HAS SAID BECAUSE HE IS SPOT ON THERE.

BUT I THINK FUNDAMENTALLY THIS WILL COME DOWN, NOT TO THE ISSUE OF WHAT CAN GUN MANUFACTURERS AND DEALERS DO, BUT RATHER AS ANIRBAN ALLUDED TO, WHAT IS CONGRESS' POWERS.

YOU HAVE TO GET AROUND THAT.

I'LL MAKE ONE OTHER POINT AND THAT IS ALL THE CASES THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT MAKE THEIR WAY THROUGH VARIOUS COURTS, HAVE TO DO WITH THE USE OF RIFLES THAT HAVE BEEN MODIFIED TO MAKE THEM AUTOMATIC WEAPONS, BUT THE FACT IS, YOU KNOW, 65% OF GUN-RELATED HOMICIDES ARE TIED TO HAND GUNS, NOT TO RIFLES.

SO IF THIS IS A WAY OF TRYING TO LIMIT THE USE OF GUNS IN SOCIETY, I DON'T KNOW THAT THESE CASES WILL DO IT FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT.

>> I'M SURE WE HAVE NOT FINISHED TALKING ABOUT GUNS AND GUN RIGHTS.

SO TO BE CONTINUED.

WHEN WE DISCUSS THE CONCEPT OF RANKED VOTING LAST MONTH, I SAID WE WOULD COME BACK TO IT.

AFTER NEW YORK CITY VOTERS TRIED IT OUT IN THE MAYORAL ELECTION.

SO IF YOU ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THIS, USING RANKED CHOICE VOTING MEANS THE VOTERS RANK THE CANDIDATES 1, 2, 3.

AND IF NOBODY GETS MORE THAN 50% OF VOTE, THEN THE ELECTION BOARD REDISTRIBUTES THE VOTES OF THE BOTTOM CANDIDATE TO WHOMEVER THOSE VOTERS CHOSE AS NUMBER 2.

AND THEN IT GOES SO ON UNTIL SOMEBODY GETS MORE THAN 50% OF THE VOTE.

KRISTI, HOW DID IT WORK IN THE NEW YORK CITY MAYOR'S RACE?

>> I THINK IT WORKED WELL.

IT PRODUCED 9 WINNER BY VERY CLOSE MARGIN.

ERIC ADAMS.

BUT YOU SAW IT WORKING, I THINK, AS THE COUNTING WENT ON.

SO CATHERINE GARCIA, FOR EXAMPLE, WHO WAS MY PREFERRED CANDIDATE, SHE STARTED OUT PRETTY FAR DOWN.

SHE MOVED UP AS THE DAYS WENT ON BECAUSE SHE WAS A LOT OF PEOPLE'S SECOND OR THIRD CHOICE.

AND SHE CAME IN QUITE CLOSE ACTUALLY, IN THE END.

BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, POST ELECTION POLLS SHOWED THAT 95% OF THE VOTERS THOUGHT IT WAS SIMPLE TO USE.

EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD RESERVATIONS GOING IN OR WERE WORRIED ABOUT IT, THEY SAID ONCE THEY GOT THERE IT WAS FINE AND THE POLL WORKERS WERE HELPFUL.

IT SEEMED THAT PEOPLE, ACCORDING TO THE REPORTS OF THE VOTERS, SPENT MORE TIME AND TRIED TO COLLECT MORE INFORMATION MOVING UP TO THE ELECTION BECAUSE THEY WERE GOING TO CAST MORE THAN ONE VOTE.

THEY JUST DIDN'T HAVE TO SAY THIS PERSON IS GOOD, I'LL VOIGHT FOR HIM OR HER AND FORGET ABOUT THE OTHER PEOPLE.

THEY NEEDED TO ACQUIRE AND PROCESS MORE INFORMATION.

AND THE TURNOUT WAS HIGHER THAN OTHER ELECTIONS.

ONE THING TO MENTION, IF THEY NEEDED A RUNOFF, IF THEY SOLVED IT THAT WAY, IT WOULD HAVE COST MUCH MORE MONEY.

SO IT SAVED MONEY POSSIBLY.

SO IT SEEMED LIKE A SUCCESSFUL TRIAL OF THIS.

>> ANIRBAN, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THAT?

>> I AGREE WITH KRISTI.

I WANT TO PUT A MORE COMPREHENSIVE PERSPECTIVE.

NEW YORK TIMES MINED THROUGH POLITICAL DATA PROVIDED BY THE MANIFESTO PROJECT AND YOU CAN SEE IT ON THE SCREEN AND IT PUTS ALL POLITICAL PARTIES IN WESTERN EUROPE, WESTERN CANADA AND THE U.S., IT TURNS OUT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HAS MOVED FAR AND FAR RIGHT.

IT IS ALMOST NEAR THE A.F.D., FAR RIGHT TO THE BRITISH CONSERVATIVE PARTY.

YOU CAN SEE THE DEMOCRATS ARE MORE TOWARDS THE CENTER.

NOW THE QUESTION IS WHAT HAPPENS TO THE POLITICAL CENTER?

NOW IF YOU HAVE JUST TWO PARTIES WITH THE PLURALITY FORM OF ELECTION, THEN, YOU KNOW, YOU CANNOT REALLY VOTE FOR THE MODERATES.

AND YOU CAN GET HIJACKED BY THE EXTREME POSITIONS OF THE PARTY, RIGHT?

SO RANKED VOTING ALLOWS YOU TO POSITIVELY THINK ABOUT VOTING AS A POSITIVE ACT, NOT A STRATEGIC ACT, NOT ABOUT CHOOSING BETWEEN TWO LESSER EVILS, BUT, YOU KNOW,RANKING THEM.

NOW I JUST WANT TO, YOU KNOW,COUNTER SOME OF THE OPPONENTS OF THIS.

ONE THING IS THAT IT IS TOO COMPLICATED.

VOTERS DON'T UNDERSTAND IT.

STOP INFANTALLIZING VOTERS.

THEY CHOOSE YOU.

PEOPLE RANK ALL THE TIME.

AND YES, YOU DON'T HAVE TO RANK ALL OF THEM.

YOU CAN GIVE ONE RANK AND STOP.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO RANK 14.

BUT IT'S GOOD FOR YOU IF YOU DO THAT.

SECOND IS THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S COSTLY, WHICH IS AGAIN, IT'S NOT.

AND I THINK NEW ZEALAND HAS USED SOME FORM OF IT, AUSTRALIA IS USING SOME FORM OF IT AND CLOSER TO HOME, MAINE'S SECOND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT USED IT LAST YEAR.

BRUCE AND JARED WALCZAK THE TWO -- AND GOLDEN WON.

HE WAS TRAILING IN THE BEGINNING BUT WHEN THE SECOND CHOICES WERE ADDED, HE KIND OF WON RANKED VOTING VOTES AND IT HELPS MODERATE VOICES COME IN AND EMPOWERS VOTERS.

AS A BYPRODUCT OF THAT, IT MAY HAVE A BETTER EFFECT ON THE PARTIES THAN GERRYMANDERING BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SIMPLY GERRYMANDER AWAY ANYMORE BECAUSE VOTERS ARE PRODUCING MORE THAN ONE CHOICE.

THAT'S IT.

>> SO I THINK ANOTHER POSITIVE POTENTIAL OUTCOME OF THIS IS THAT IT DIMINISHES THE EXTENT TO WHICH OUR POLITICS ARE THE POLITICS OF THE PERSONAL, RIGHT?

BECAUSE IF YOU ACTUALLY HAVE SEVERAL CANDIDATES WHO ARE MEANINGFUL CONTENDERS, VIABLE CONTENDERS, IT'S LESS POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO FOCUS IN AND DEMONIZE A SINGLE OTHER CANDIDATE.

YOU REALLY HAVE TO SPREAD YOUR CAMPAIGN RESOURCES.

ONE OF THE DRAWBACKS THAT I SEE HERE AND KRISTI, SINCE I KNOW YOU KNOW A LOT ABOUT THIS, MAYBE YOU'LL CHIME IN HERE.

ONE OF THE DRAWBACKS I SEE IS THAT EFFECTIVELY THE SPOILERS ARE ELIMINATED, RIGHT?

, IN THE SECOND ROUND.

THOSE THAT DON'T GET ENOUGH.

THEY'RE ELIMINATED.

AND SO THE RESULT OF THAT, TO ME, IS THAT POTENTIAL SPOILERS THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES WHO GET LEFT OUT THE NEXT TIME AROUND, DON'T HAVE THE SORT OF ELECTORAL IMPACT THAT THEN ALLOWS THEM TO HAVE THE LONG-TERM POLICY IMPACT THAT WE'VE SEEN SOME 30 PARTY CANDIDATES IN HISTORY HAVE.

FOR EXAMPLE, GEORGE WALLACE, WHOSE AGENDA I ABSOLUTELY DEPLORE, NONETHELESS, BECAUSE HE WALKED AWAY WITH 13% OF THE POPULAR VOTE, 45 OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTE, HE WAS ABLE TO PUSH LAW AND ORDER IN WAYS THAT CONTINUE TO HAVE LASTING EFFECT.

ANOTHER IS ROSS PEROT IN '92 WHO GOT 19%.

THAT 19% POSITIONED HIM TO ELEVATE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DEFICIT.

SO THIS IS JUST ME THINKING OUT OF THE BOX.

WHAT HAPPENS TO THOSE?

RALPH NADER WHO STARTED IN THE MID 1960s CONTINUES THROUGHOUT, I BELIEVE HAS HAD AT LEAST A SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN ELEVATING THE IMPORTANCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE.

SO I WONDER WHAT ABOUT THOSE SPOILERS THAT GET ELIMINATED?

>> IT SEEMS TOO TO ME YOU ARE ASKING FOR OR POSSIBLY RECOMMENDING A MULTIPARTY SYSTEM WHICH IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

AND THIS RANKED CHOICE VOTING DOESN'T PRESUME ANY PARTICULAR NUMBER OF PARTIES.

IN FACT, IT WORKS BEST, I THINK, IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS WHERE THESE PEOPLE ARE ALL DEMOCRATS.

IT WAS A DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY, OR IN SOME WESTERN STATES WHERE THEY HAVE, YOU HAVE NON-PARTISAN, YOU KNOW, ELECTIONS FOR LOCAL OFFICES AND SO ON, A BURCH OF PEOPLE MIGHT-- A BUNCH OF PEOPLE MIGHT RUN.

I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU ARE WANTING IS RELEVANT TO WHAT THE -- >> I'M TALKING ABOUT CANDIDATES IN A GENERAL ELECTION.

>> LET ME PULL BOB IN REAL QUICKLY.

>> I WAS LOOKING FOR CRITICISMS OF RANKED CHOICE VOTING AND I READ SOME.

BUT FRANKLY THEY WERE TERRIBLE, THEY WEREN'T EFFECTIVE CRITICISMS.

THERE ARE PROBABLY BETTER CRITICISMS OUT THERE BUT THE ONLY THING COULD I FORMULATE FROM THIS IS THAT IT SEEMS TO ENCOURAGE MORE CANDIDATES RUNNING FOR OFFICE.

YOU ARE GOING TO GET A LOT RUNNING FOR MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY ANYWAY BUT ENCOURAGES FRINGE CANDIDATES WHO HELP HOPE TO DO WELL ENOUGH IN THE BALLOTING EARLY ON THEY CAN SUSTAIN A CANDIDACY AND ULTIMATELY WIND UP ON TOP.

I THINK IT IS A GOOD SYSTEM.

MAINE AND ALASKA HAVE THAT SYSTEM RIGHT NOW AND A FEW COUNTRIES DO, TOO.

>> IT SOUNDS LIKE THE PANEL IS IN FAVOR OF THAT.

WE'LL SEE IF WE END UP DOING THAT IN CENTRAL NEW YORK.

TO OUR THIRD TOPIC NOW, IN ACADEMIA YOU KNOW WE BUILD ON THE RESEARCH OF OTHERS BUT WE ALWAYS CREDIT OUR SOURCES.

AND ANOTHER KEY PRINCIPLE FOR OUR STUDENTS IS DON'T PLAGIARIZE BUT WHAT ABOUT THE RULES FOR THOSE WHO ARE GIVING THE WEEKLY MESSAGES IN OUR CHURCHES AND SYNAGOGUES AND MOSQUES?

THERE'S BEEN A LITTLE KERFUFFLE IN SOUTHERN BAPTIST CIRCLES WHEN PEOPLE LEARNED THE NEW HEAD GAVE A SERMON WITH THE EXACT SAME FIVE POINTS OF ANOTHER CHURCH LEADER AND DIDN'T CREDIT THEM.

THIS IS PLAIJ RIM?

PLAGIARISM.

>> OF COURSE IT IS PLAGIARISM.

THE QUESTION IS IF IS IT SIN I VISITED A LOCAL CHURCH FOR THE FIRST AND BY THE WAY, THE LAST TIME, DURING WHICH THE MINISTERS VERBAL PRESENTATION OF HIS SERMON SEEMED A LOT LESS SOPHISTICATED THAN THE POWERPOINT SLIDES THAT HE WAS SHOWING.

AND SO I GOT BUSY GOOGLING TO SEE HOW IS THIS HAPPENING, ONLY TO FIND THE ENTIRE SERMON, THE ENTIRE POWERPOINT PRESENTATION.

SO I WAS ABLE TO GO TWO OR THREE SLIDES AHEAD OF THIS MINISTER BEFORE HE GOT THERE.

SO I LEFT THINKING I'M GOING PRAY FOR THIS MINISTER.

THERE ARE LIES OF CO-MISSION AND OMISSION AND BY DEFINITION, PLAGIARISM IS PASSING OFF AS ONE'S OWN WORK, SOMEONE ELSE'S WORK.

BUT I WOULD PROBABLY SAY FROM, YOU KNOW, FROM A SORT OF CLERGY STANDPOINT, THE MAIN THING AT LEAST IN CHRISTIAN CHURCHES THAT MINISTERS DO AT THE END OF THE SERVICE IS GIVE A SERMON.

AND MANY INVEST AN INCREDIBLE AMOUNT OF TIME, SOMETIMES HOURS, DAYS, WEEKS.

AND IF A PASTOR DOESN'T HAVE TIME TO PREPARE A SERMON, MAYBE HE SHOULD THINK ABOUT BEING A SOCIAL JUSTICE ADVOCATE OR A A MISSIONARY.

BUT I SAY THERE IS THE OTHER SIDE TO THIS, WHICH IS THAT IF, AS MANY CHRISTIANS BELIEVE YOU SEE THE WORD OF GOD AS THE WORD OF GOD, THEN IT DOESN'T MATTER WHERE YOU ARE GETTING THE EXPLANATION.

>> I CAN'T GET PAST POWERPOINT IN CHURCH SOMEHOW.

I'M NO CHURCH GOER, BUT THE ANSWER IS REAL SIMPLE.

FOOTNOTES.

TO ME, THIS IS SOME DEGREE A TEMPEST IN A TEA POT.

I'M NOT A CHURCH GOER BUT I'VE HEARD SERMONS AND YOU KIND OF EXPECT THEY'RE DERIVATIVE FROM OTHER SOURCES.

BUT YOU PUT IN FOOT FOOTNOTES.

THAT TO ME IS THE SIMPLE REMEDY.

>> THERE WERE SOME INTERESTING RESPONSES TO THIS IN THE NEW YORK TIMES, FROM CLERGY PEOPLE.

AND THERE WAS ONE THAT I REALLY LIKED FROM RABBI IN NAN NANTUCKET WHICH I LIKED IMAGINING THAT ANYWAY.

HE SAID IT'S AN HONOR TO SHARE THE LEARNING AND WISDOM OF A COLLEAGUE TEACHER OR NOTED SOURCE.

TO DO ANYTHING ELSE, DISHONORS THE ORIGINAL SOURCE AND THE PREACHER.

I ALWAYS LOOK TO THE WISDOM OF OTHERS BUT MY COMMUNITY DESERVES TO KNOW WHERE THAT WISDOM CAME FROM.

I THINK THAT'S CORRECT.

>> WELL, I'M NO EXPERT IN THIS BUT WHEN I WAS GOING THROUGH "THE NEW YORK TIMES" ARTICLE, THERE IS ONE COUNTER POSITION THAT MANY RELIGIOUS PEOPLE ARE TAKING, WHICH IS THAT PREACHING IS NOT ABOUT PERSONAL GLORY OR VANITY, THE EXACT WORDS THAT WERE USED.

SO WHY SHOULDN'T IT BE ALL RIGHT TO BORROW?

WHAT ABOUT HUMILITY, LOVE, RIGHT?

SHOULD PREACHING COME WITH PATENTS?

WOULDN'T THAT BE STRANGE OR, FOR EXAMPLE, SHOULD THE PREACHER PROVIDE A REFERENCE LIST AT THE END TO THE CONGREGATION?

HERE IS MY ACADEMIC REFERENCES OF WHERE I'M BORROWING FROM.

AND I GUESS EVERYBODY AT THE END IS BORROWING FROM A BOOK, RIGHT?

VERY IMPORTANT BOOK, RIGHT?

BUT HAVING SAID THAT, I DO THINK THAT THE PARTICULAR PASTOR IN QUESTION, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER IF HE WOULD HAVE JUST SAID I'M BORROWING HEAVILY FROM ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES.

AND THAT WOULD HAVE ENDED IT.

I THINK THERE WAS A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF DUPLICITY THERE WHICH IS HARD TO AVOID.

AND THERE ARE SIMILAR CASES FROM 2002 AND 2006 BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS A VERY INTERESTING CASE.

>> SOMETHING THAT HAS APPARENTLY BEEN GOING ON FOR THE AGES.

ONE PASTOR SAID YES, THEY STILL DO TEACH PLAGIARISM IN SEMINARY.

IT IS TIME TO OPEN UP THE GRADEBOOK.

KRISTI, WE ARE LOOKING FOR YOUR F. >> TO REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS AROUND THE COUNTRY WHO ARE PUSH CAN BILLS TO GIVE UNVACCINATED PEOPLE THE SAME PROTECTIONS AS THOSE SURROUNDING RACE GENDER AND RELIGION.

MON TANA FOR EXAMPLE, JUST PASSED A LAW THAT PROHIBITS EMPLOYERS FROM REQUIRING EMPLOYEE TO BE VACCINATED.

EVEN PROHIBITS THEM FROM ASKING EMPLOYEES TO DISCLOSE THEIR IMMUNIZATION STATUS.

>> AND BOB.

>> ON THE SAME SUBJECT, I'M GIVING AN F TO THE TENNESSEE STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH FOR HALTING ITS OUTREACH PROGRAM DESIGNED TO ENCOURAGE YOUNG PEOPLE TO GET THE COVID VACCINE.

BUT ALSO THEY'RE STOPPING THE PROGRAM TO ENCOURAGE ALL VACCINATIONS OF YOUNG PEOPLE.

THAT'S A TERRIBLE MISTAKE.

TENNESSEE'S TOP VACCINATION OFFICIAL HAS BEEN FIRED AND THE REAL CULPRIT IS REPUBLICAN STATE LEGISLATORS IN TENNESSEE.

MAYBE TENNESSEE SHOULD BE RENAMED THE CENTERS FOR DISEASE.

>> ANIRBAN.

>> >> MY F, TRYING TO SELL A REAL GUN DISGUISED AS A TOY FROM LEGOS.

KNOCK, KNOCK, WHO IS THERE?

THE DANISH TOY MAKER CALLED AND ASKED THEM TO CEASE AND DESIST THE SALE OF THE GUNS AND THEY HAD TO STOP THE SALES.

>> AND NINA, YOUR F. >> TO THE GROWING NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO SET THEIR GOLD FISH FREE IN A LOCAL LAKE OR POND.

SEVERAL STATES HAVE HAD TO ISSUE WARNINGS ABOUT THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY GOLD FISH RELEASE INTOED FRESH WATER.

THEY CAN GROW UP TO FOUR POUNDS AND A FOOT LONG AND THEY CAN DRASTICALLY CHANGE WATER QUALITY BY UPROOTING PLANTS AND STIRRING UP SEDIMENT.

SO IF YOU ARE THINKING ABOUT SETTING YOUR GOLD FISH FREE, DO IT THE OLD FASHIONED WAY.

>> AND LET'S SEE WHO HAS DONE WELL, KRISTI, YOUR A PLEASE.

>> SHE HAS DONE REALLY WELL, AVANT GARDE, 14-YEAR-OLD, THE FIRST AFRICAN-AMERICAN WINNER OF THE NATIONAL SPELLING BEE AND FIRST WINNER FROM LOUISIANA.

IN A CASE THAT DOESN'T GET HER AN A, SHE HOLDS THREE GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS FOR DRIBBLING THREE BASKETBALLS AT THE SAME TIME.

I ENCOURAGE YOU TO READ ABOUT HER.

SHE IS A VERY INTERESTED AND GIFTED PERSON.

>> AND BOB.

>> MY A IS MUCH MORE IMPORTANT.

I'M GIVING AN A TO BRITTANY SPEARS WHO IS TRYING DESPERATELY TO GET OUT FROM UNDER HER FATHER'S 13-YEAR CONSERVATORSHIP.

SHE WON A DECISION FROM A JUDGE ALLOWING HER TO HIRE HER OWN LAWYER AFTER HAVING A COURT APPOINTED LAWYER FOR 13 YEARS AND BRITTANY IS NEARLY 40.

IT'S TIME TO LEAVE BRITTANY ALONE.

>> HERE, HERE.

>> OKAY.

ANIRBAN.

>> MY A GOES TO REUNION OF A FATHER AND SON AFTER 24 YEARS IN CHINA.

HIS SON WAS ABDUCTED IN 1997 AND HE TRAVELED 300,000 MILES AND USED 10 MOTOR BIKES TO DO SO AND FINALLY THEY WERE UNITED THIS WEEK.

IT INSPIRED A FAMOUS FILM CALLED "LOST IN LOVE" AND FINALLY, THIS WEEK THIS NEWS SENT HAPPY WAVES ACROSS THE GLOBAL INTERWAVES.

>> NINA.

>> FANTASTIC.

TO INVESTIGATE THE CLAIM THAT THERE IS NO TUNA IN SUBWAY'S TUNA SANDWICH, NEW YORK TIMES WRITER PURCHASED SANDWICHES FROM THREE DIFFERENT SUBWAY LOCATIONS, FROZE THEM, SHIPPED THEM TO A LAB WHERE DNA TEST WAS RUN AND WAITED A MONTH FOR RESULTS.

THE RESULTS CAME BACK INCONCLUSIVE.

THIS IS GOOD NEWS TO ME BECAUSE IT MEANS THAT I CAN KEEP BELIEVING THAT THERE IS TUNA IN THE SUBWAY TUNA SANDWICH.

>> ARE YOU A FAN OF SUBWAY TUNA SANDWICHES?

>> YES, I AM.

>> VERY GOOD.

WELL, IT IS TIME FOR US TO CLOSE TONIGHT.

WE WANT TO REMIND YOU THAT WE ALWAYS LIKE TO HEAR FROM YOU AND WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY LETTERS LATELY.

SO DO WRITE US AT THE ADDRESSES THAT YOU SEE ON YOUR SCREEN.

IF YOU MISSED THE SHOW ANY FRIDAY NIGHT, IT REPEATS SATURDAY AFTERNOONS AT 5:30.

OR YOU CAN FIND THE SHOW ONLINE ANY TIME AT WCNY.ORG.

GOOD NIGHT.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪