Tuesday, 28 October 2008

On investigation

I think James Joyner nicely captures the dynamics at work when trying to investigate whether or not someone can engage in criminal behavior—in this case, make a contribution to a political campaign under an assumed name. I would only make the point that I doubt Mark Kleiman would object to the use of similar tactics by those investigating airport security or, for that matter, that perennial local TV sweeps favorite of sending an investigative reporter undercover into the meat department of a local grocery store to document all the horrifically bad things that go on behind closed doors—or, for that matter, would object to anyone bragging about having done so, even if violating the law (which I am pretty sure both of these other examples involve).


Any views expressed in these comments are solely those of their authors; they do not reflect the views of the authors of Signifying Nothing, unless attributed to one of us.

What about the “meat department ethics” involved when one unnamed grad students who works in a grocery store meat dept. tags top of the line steaks with labels that set the price at 10 cents per pound and then sells them to another unnamed grad student?


That’s just good networking. Or theft, depending on whether or not you’re a Kroger shareholder.


I know what happened to the meat dept. worker….but what happened to the buyer after grad school? I have heard hints of sightings, but (thankfully) haven’t run into him at the conferences (if he is even still in academia).


If it’s the grad student I’m occasionally confused with due to a common first name… no idea. Last I heard he was puttering around in adjunct jobs around his hometown, but even that may have ended. You could try searching the APSA member database (I haven’t bothered to renew yet).

Comments are now closed on this post.