Cynical Nation

Hey Barry,
You must know what plagiarism really is. Plagiarism is when you take words or sentences WITHOUT permission. In this case Barack had the full approval of Deval. In fact, after the story broke Deval said that he was happy that Barack was using his words. So, that is not by any means plagiarism and you I am sure you understand that.

The whole plagiarism issue is totally ridiculous. In the same way, one could argue that McCain using the sentence "I am fired up and ready to go" that Obama used first on National TV is plagiarism as well?

It is kind of despicable that the Clinton campaign will go that low with this fake plagiarism issue. Accusing Barack of plagiarism is totally dishonest and reflects desperation. It will eventually backfire big time for the Clinton campaign. Their tricks and dishonest attacks are almost republican in nature.

>In fact, after the story broke Deval said that he was happy that Barack was using his words. So, that is not by any means plagiarism and you I am sure you understand that.

What prevents it from being plagiarism is when you seek the author's permission beforehand, not having the author say he doesn't mind after the fact.

But in any case, I agree with you that the charges of plagiarism look pretty weak to me. That was not the point of my post. My point was how Patrick did a much more masterful job of *delivering* those same words than Obama did.

Deval had given him permission beforehand. That's the whole point. There was absolutely no plagiarism.

I agree with you that in this video Deval did a better job than Obama. But that was probably the worst performance of Obama that I have ever seen.

Anyway, what really bothers me is the extent of the deception of the Clinton campaign. As you know, in academics plagiarism is equivalent to fraud and, accusing someone of plagiarism is an extremely serious offense. And I am sure they knew well that what Obama did was not plagiarism. This attack on Obama was despicable and makes me wonder what kind of people are running the Clinton campaign. They start reminding me of Karl Rove.

Isn't that the point of Clinton's campaign? That we have to be Karl Rove to defeat Karl Rove?

But not against other democrats.

Isn't the point that it is a PERFORMANCE!
I wonder- are Americans so ignorant that they need a good performer instead of useful information?

"Plagiarism is when you take words or sentences WITHOUT permission. In this case Barack had the full approval of Deval." (BW)


OK, for the "dictionary-challenged," among us, "Plagiarism is the practice of claiming or implying original authorship of (or incorporating material from) someone else's written or creative work, in whole or in part, into one's own without adequate acknowledgement."

Niell Kinnoch had no problem with Joe Biden lifting a few passages from HIS speech, but it was still "plagiarism" because of the critical lack of acknowledgment."

Amazingly enough, it can safely be said that Joe Biden IS, in effect, Barack Obama's "Rosa Parks."

He blazed the trail that Obama now follows.



In answer to Paul Moore's question, "In far too many cases, YES."

JMK,
As always you have no idea what you are talking about and you are embarassing yourself. What Obama did was not near plagiarism. He had the full approval and encouragement of Deval before he used the parts of his speech.

It appears you're in error on the definition of plagiarism, BW. I believe I've shown your homemade definition of plagiarism to be wrong.

PERMISSION does NOT negate plagiarism...thus Governor Patrick's retroactive permission notwithstanding, Obama's lifting those passages without ACKNOWLEDGMENT is what constitutes plagiarism.

I can understand WHY Obama went out of his way to avoid mentioning Deval Patrick, who's popularity dropped 20 points his first year and has stayed in the toilet due to the ineptitude of his governance thus far.

Deval Patrick has been a major disappointment in Massachusetts and could very well send the state house their back to the GOP.

Ironically enough, Deval Patrick was also elected on the strength of his words, or "speechifying" (in my parlance)....unfortunately, like other such reformers (ie. NY's Eliot Spitzer and former President "Jimma Carter") their words and promises didn't translate into effective, even competent governance.

Now Newark's Cory Booker looks like he could be the "real deal," IF he can get Newark's crime under control and attract businesses to that beleagured city.

And not to belabor a fine point here, BUT what's with phrases like "As always..." coming from you?

You've been right and I've been wrong, what???....Hmmmm, looks like about exactly zero times to date.

Just an observation.

JMK,
Sorry, but understanding these issues is apparently not your strength. Dont try to fabricate non-existing facts (as you do frequently). There is no plagiarism when there is advanced permission. And there was absolutely no plagiarism in this case.

Again, plagiarism has NOTHING to do with "permission," BW.

I gave you the dictionary definition, "Plagiarism is the practice of claiming or implying original authorship of (or incorporating material from) someone else's written or creative work, in whole or in part, into one's own without adequate acknowledgement."

Your homemade definition is wrong.

There is no exception to claim words as your own, without appelation, "so long as you get advanced permission." So that definition stands, UNLESS, of course, you can find and source ANOTHER (conflicting) definition?

But I don't think you can find that, as by your stated, ridiculous standard, so long as I could claim "Papa gave me permission," I could appropriate whole sections of For Whom the Bells Toll, without crediting Ernest Hemmingway.

I can assure you, while I could claim and almost certainly get that "permission," (from that family) that would still be plagiarism, as it is clearly defined.

A better argument for your view (I grew up having to argue and defend everything to my Dad who was the ultimate "devil's advocate") would be to say, "Deval Patrick and Barack Obama share the same campaign manager and thus, it's not surprising they share many of the same ideas and verbiage, so this isn't going to amount to much."

That would at least be a decent explanation, and I've acknowledged that it certainly ISN'T going to be a "big deal" (due, at least in some measure, to today's "affirmative action" culture), although it still doesn't negate the FACT that Obama failed to cite Deval Patrick as the source of that address and THAT is the very definition of the charge of plagiarism.


You often claim "not to have the time" to make decent arguments for your views, but it doesn't appear to be any lack of time or length that plagues you, it's a problem with actual facts.

Oddly enough (and not to open up old wounds with some others around here), a while back, someone took me to task for "asserting my opinions as FACTS," which as I pointed out back then, is something I almost NEVER do.....that's the whole point of the myriad references to "In my view," and "I believe" throughout the vast majority of my posts. In fact, ironically enough, I used that exact first phrase in the post that person challenged me on.

As a result, I got somewhat contentious with that person over that error, but what bothered me far more about that event, and that person (as well as some others around here) is that YOU, who rarely, if ever properly designate your opinions as such, are rarely challenged (except by me, of course) and almost never on that particular score.

It's almost as if, there were some people around here, who feel those who believe in traditional American values, economic Liberty, etc. (such as myself) have no right to those opinions.

THAT, is what got me "hot," as they say.

While I don't think you're a "bad guy" (BW), your views are, in my estimation, almost always toxic and corrosive and just as egregiously, they are consistently misinformed and contrary to the prevailing facts.

Sure, that can be a source of real amusement - "Howard Dean's going to be our next President," "Kerry's going to win in a landslide," "John Edwards is the best candidate on either side," "Ronald Reagan was a terrible President," your defense of Jimmy Carter, and on and on.

Like I said, "You've been right and I've been wrong, what???....Hmmmm, looks like about exactly zero times to date."

I think, given the examples above, that that is, without much exaggeration, a very accurate" statement.

If I'm not being fair, just let me know, by showing me where I'm in error here.

"plagiarism has NOTHING to do with "permission,"

JMK,
I told you to stop embarrassing yourself, but you are not listening and you use dictionaries. A speech is not an article.

Ok, if you dont trust me, ask Barry. I am sure he knows exactly what plagiarism is and he can explain it to you. Obama's speech had nothing to do with plagiarism.

Plagiarism in speech is indeed the EXACT same thing as it is in written form BW, that is to say, that it is all about the lack of proper acknowledgement" and NOT at all about permission.

Niell Kinnoch had little problem at all with Joseph Biden using his words (like Barack Obama, Biden gave literally another person's speech, verbatim, as his own).....since Kinnoch's "permission" (or OK) did NOT absolve Biden (and rightly so), then it stands to reason, that it shouldn't absolve Obama of a similar offense.

There is no separate standard for spoken words and written words. In fact, ALL spoken words are first WRITTEN words! That's how speech writers make their livings.

As I said, the problem here, from my perspective, is that you've made yet another badly flawed argument.

Plagiarism IS about "acknowledgement" NOT "permission."

I gave you your argument above and you appear not to have understood why that was at least a more acceptable defense.

Here's yet another; "Neither Barack Obama, nor Deval Patrick wrote this speech. A speech writer did. It's possible that since Patrick and Obama share a manager, they may also share a speech writer or two, who used swaths of a speech written for Patrick, in this one for Obama. In that instance, it would not be "plagiarism" in any strict sense of the term."

Once again, I'm taking issue with your distressing inability to make the case for your viewpoints and instead of examining that, you inanely choose to try to make this into a semantics game.

The problem with that strategy, at least in your case, is that you're about as effective with semantics as you are with the facts, which is to say, not at all.

I hope I'm not being overly harsh here, but I think a person should at least be able to make logical, affirmative arguments for the things they profess to believe.

Is that somehow unreasonable?

Why dont you get another opinion? Why dont you just ask Barry? Why not?

>Why dont you get another opinion? Why dont you just ask Barry? Why not?

Who do I look like, Bill Safire? (Actually, don't answer that. Now that I'm in my 40's, I probably do.) Anyway, they do publish reference books that are useful for just such occasions as this. They're called dictionaries.

Ok, cool. From now one lets communicate with dictionaries.

Blue Wind said: "Ok, cool. From now one lets communicate with dictionaries."

obtuse

Main Entry: ob·tuse
Pronunciation: \äb-ˈtüs, əb-, -ˈtyüs\
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): ob·tus·er; ob·tus·est
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin obtusus blunt, dull, from past participle of obtundere to beat against, blunt, from ob- against + tundere to beat — more at ob-, contusion
Date: 15th century
1 a: not pointed or acute : blunt b (1)of an angle : exceeding 90 degrees but less than 180 degrees (2): having an obtuse angle — see triangle illustration cof a leaf : rounded at the free end
2 a: lacking sharpness or quickness of sensibility or intellect : insensitive, stupid b: difficult to comprehend : not clear or precise in thought or expression

BW, I gave you a dictionary definition. Plagiarism is about ACKNOWELEDGMENT not PERMISSION. Of that, there appears to be little question.

But that's only one of the problems with your initial post here (erroneous informaion), you also failed to make a decent argument for your viewpoint. I found that one, even more egregious.

You claimed that "permission" from Deval Patrick, in effect, "made everything alright." It DIDN'T.

Any more than, say Pat Buchanan, giving me permission (after the fact) to lift things whole from one of his books or articles, would make THAT alright.

It took me (please, don't gush over me, now) all of about two minutes to make and post an affirmative argument for the Obama side; "Neither Barack Obama, nor Deval Patrick wrote this speech. A speech writer did. It's possible that since Patrick and Obama share a manager, they may also share a speech writer or two, who used swaths of a speech written for Patrick, in this one for Obama. In that instance, it would not be "plagiarism" in any strict sense of the term."

Not a bad argument, if I do say so, and certainly a far better one than the erroneous one you made, but it too misses the point that Barack Obama (who lifted a Deval Patrick speech) and Joe Biden (who lifted a speech from Neill Kinnoch, of England's Labor Party) were arbitrarily held to separate and unequal standards.

Apparently, in your partisan frenzy, you missed that subtle point, that today there still exists a "separate and unequal" set of standards, only today, various arbitrarily categorized "protected groups" are its primary beneficiaries.

That's right, remember, JMK is always right, like he was on RICO, H1B, and that villian FDR.

Obama said "I have a dream" plagiarizing Marting Luther King, then he went on to plagiarize a bunch of other guys. He was trying to take credit for "I have a dream" -- what a moron!

I can't believe Obama tried to steal that one. In order not to plagiarize, under JMK's definition, he had to say "AS THE REVEREND MARTING LUTHER KING JR. SAID ... I have a dream!"

Great catch JMK!

Well, a rare lucid moment from Barely Hanging!

I'm glad you've come around on RICO, although, to be fair, even the article you posted made very clear that RICO didn't allow anything like "government confiscation of assets prior to conviction."

But I'm pretty certain you'd already conceded that point....quite awhile ago, in fact.

But I am glad you agree with the dictionary definition of plagiarism I posted. You seem, however, to go much further than I do on that subject.

I've stated that there is not much difference between Barack Obama's giving a verbatim Deval Patrick speech," and Joe Biden's giving a vintage "Niell Kinnoch speech," virtually word-for-word.

I think you go a little too far in asserting that a speaker can't reference a world-famous line, without being guilty of plagiarism.

Still, I want to encourage your more lucid moments as much as possible.

Now, please, PLEASE don't go and disappoint me by claiming "sarcasm," or something.

JMK,
Now wake up from your dream. Obama did NOT plagiarize anything. He said what he did with the ENCOURANGEMENT of Deval who is his national campaign chairman. In other words Deval suggested that Obama uses that line. And that came up again in the debate tonight.

I know it is hard for you to operate with common sense, but that is very obvious. You can not plagiarize something from someone who is authorizing you (and encouraging you) to use it. Pfeeewww...

What in God's name is wrong with you BW?! I'm beginning to think you're not even smart enough to be a "naive dupe."

As you're NOW using MY argument! (at least part of it...the part you got right)

A mere five posts above, I offered, "Neither Barack Obama, nor Deval Patrick wrote this speech. A speech writer did. It's possible that since Patrick and Obama share a manager, they may also share a speech writer or two, who used swaths of a speech written for Patrick, in this one for Obama. In that instance, it would not be "plagiarism" in any strict sense of the term."

Initially YOU said, "Plagiarism is when you take words or sentences WITHOUT permission."

I immediately showed you that THAT homemade definition of yours is wrong.

The dictionary definition of plagiarism remains, "Plagiarism is the practice of claiming or implying original authorship of someone else's written or creative work, in whole or in part, into one's own without adequate acknowledgement."

You said, in effect, "No it isn't," by charging, "...You are not listening and you (gasp!) use dictionaries..."

You then beseeched Barry to intervene on your behalf and he said, "Anyway, they do publish reference books that are useful for just such occasions as this. They're called dictionaries."

You then sheepishly accepted the inevitablity of accepting dictionary definitions as the final word on well, defining words, saying, "Ok, cool. From now one lets communicate with dictionaries."

In the interim, I POSTED two defenses which could be used to defend Barack Obama's lifting large swaths of Deval Patrick's speech.

One of those defenses was the one I just re-posted above. A defense which both ironically and astoundingly enough you now seem to have come to accept (and at least partially plagiarized), but STILL (somehow) managed to get wrong.

The FACT is that neither Obama nor Patrick write their own speeches. It is very possible that they share speech writers. So that exchange of speeches could merely be due to some sloppy standards on the part of the Obama campaign. Hardly a surprising, or even unexpected possibility, as I'm sure you'd agree.

Unfortunately, since Deval Patrick DIDN'T write that speech (though I doubt Niell Kinnoch wrote his either), Barack Obama had the same responsibility to source Deval Patrick, as Joe Biden had to source Niell Kinnoch.

As you now know, permission has nothing to do with plagiarism.

If, for instance, I had the bad form to post a piece by someone else on my blog under MY name, their "permission," either retroactive (as in Barack Obama's case) OR in advance, would make no difference. It would still be plagiarism.

Why NOT?

Well, because, as the dictionary states, "Plagiarism is the practice of claiming or implying original authorship of someone else's written or creative work, in whole or in part, without adequate acknowledgement."

If you're going to use an argument I post for your side, would you at least stick to the script? You took the start of my previously posted "defense" and then veered back to inanely claim that "prioir permission negated any charge of plagiarism."

Not so! At least not according to the (gasp!) dictionary definition of the word.

"You then sheepishly accepted the inevitablity of accepting dictionary definitions "

JMK,
I am sorry but I can not respond to you because I can not find my dictionary. I will respond in due time after I buy a new one.

"As you now know, permission has nothing to do with plagiarism."

See above. Oh, and LOL LOL LOL.

Are we ready to "declare a winner"(1) in this week's "pissing contest"(2)?

(1) Edward R Murrow, Election Night 1948, CBS News.
(2) George Patton, Rhine River, Dec. 9, 1944

You're in luck BW!

Good thing I'm around, right?

Merriam-Webster is free and online!

http://www.merriam-webster.com/

Permission DOES NOT the requirment for a source. If you can find an exemption for "permission," please post it.

Again, my problem with you in this case, as always is your inability to make a logical, affirmative argument for your side.

OK, it's not just you, that's something that tends to plague the overwhelming majority of Leftists (thank God, for that).

I GAVE you a decent argument and posted it twice, but you still don't understand that and insist on erroneously claiming that "plagiarism is using someone else's words without permission," when no dictionary backs that up.




Are we ready to "declare a winner"(1) in this week's "pissing contest"(2)? (Fred)

I think you just did, Fred, as you consistently look to defend the most Liberal position, at least where possible.

I give you credit for not looking to obfuscate the actual facts, no matter how tempted you may have been.

Looking to 'consistently defend the most liberal position..? All I asked was that a winner be declared. All you did was jump to a conclusion for some reason.

With that line, I was ribbing you Fred. Not so much on the "I think you just did," one.

Although you DO indeed tend to almost always defend the more Liberal position. That much is obvious.

Be honest with yourself. As a for instance, I was the ONLY poster you've ever claimed "posted opinions as prouncements of fact," when I very nearly always include phrases like "in my view," etc, when I give an opinion, and have since I began posting. In fact, I did that within the very post you called me on that.

Meanwhile, there are a number of Leftists here (some of them quite "looney") who almost NEVER make a distinction between their (generally poorly phrased) opinions and the facts, as they tend to inanely see them as one and the same.

THAT apparently doesn't bother you, as you share a common, or at least a preponderance of a common ideological viewpoint.

That may well be "only natural" Fred, but it is also the very definition of an ideological bias. And while it's true that we all have those (ideological biases) any thinking person should. The thing I've objected to with you is that you've always claimed to be a Republican (for better or worse, the Party known as the more CONSERVATIVE Party in America...I think for the better, others, apparently not as much) while proceeding to put across all manner of socially Liberal postions, and often appearing appalled or disgusted that your chosen Party is home to (gasp!) gobs of social Conservatives. Fred, those social Conservatives are the overwhelming majority of Republicans today! They also comprise about 30% of the Democratic Party as well.

Look, I remain a registered Democrat and I stay that way and make no bones about the fact that I want to see, as I often say, "the South rise again," by which I mean, I want nothing less than the workingclass and Blue Collar Conservatives to once again take control of our beloved Party and forcibly expel what many social Conservatives either affectionately or not, refer to as "the Leftards."

If you proclaimed yourself a "proud social Liberal," seeking nothing less than the re-Rockefellerization (how's that for an amalgamated word?) of the GOP, I'd respect that stout and non-stealthy position, despite vehemently disagreeing with it.

What you've long done, is the equivalent of me merely noting that I'm a Democrat, then adding how appalled and outraged I am that there are out-and-out socialists and extreme Leftists (like MoveOn, the Kos-kids, Mike Moore, etc) in my beloved Party.

My issues with you have not been over views we disagree on, so much as how you choose to present yourself and your outlook.

The idea that the over 60 million deeply religious people in this country, who are largely socially Conservative, should be marginalized merely because a few urban elitists think they should is nothing more than a petty bigotry dressed up as legitimate outrage.

Conservatism and supply-side theft from the middle class to the rich are now dead.

Most religious people aren't right wing fruitcakes who listen to Rush every day at lunch while on the public dole in a unionized government job ... like you.

Barely, you should avoid getting involved with discussions on topics you don't understand.

One of your first posts around here was prefaced with your admitting, "I don't understand anything about economics, but I don't have to..." and while that first part is not only obviously true, it's the primary reason that I've spent so much time going over basic economic issues with you.

I am not merely a Union member, I'm a delagate who KNOWS that the purpose of a Union is to forge an alliance WITH management for the benefit of the CONSUMER, who is the reason that business, that government entity and those jobs exist in the first place.

The consumer is King, the worker is a mere pawn or, more aptly a salesman of a commodity - his/her labor.

Human nature disctates that both management and labor will occassionally overlook or discount the needs of the other.

Municipal Unions (at least in NY) are bound by the Taylor law that prohibits them from striking and makes binding arbitrartion mandatory at impasse. In NYC, that was formerly delivered via New York City's Office of Collective Bargaining, where the city picked two arbitors and the Union picked one, all from a pool of city-approved arbitors. That system has been replaced with the state-wide PERB (Public Employees Relations Board), with a similar state-wide dynamic.

PERB looks at the demands from both sides and the prevailing conditions and renders a decision.

One of the many "prevailing conditions" that PERB looks at is the given Municipality's ability to pay, given its current revenue structure. No such entity is about to let a mere public employees union necessitate a tax hike to pay for their wage increase!

PERB has worked well over the last decade and I, and many of my colleagues feel strongly that some sort of binding arbitration should be mandated for ALL unions...in fact, for ALL workers.

Unions exist to forge alliances and balance out the countervailing demands between labor and management ALWAYS (at least ideally) with the consumer's best interests in mind.

Wise up.

Fascinating stuff.

Thousands of words to argue about the definition of plagiarism.

I think there's a more important issue that sits behind all of this. Most of these guys aren't writing their own speeches to begin with, so in the end it's more about delivery then anything else. You could almost relate politicians to actors reading a script.

That doesn't mean they aren't moved by the words, but we live in an interesting world. I don't think Lincoln had speech writers, it would be nice if you could be confident that the words you're hearing in any speech are the words of the person reading them, and not someone elses as well.

“Thousands of words to argue about the definition of plagiarism.

“I think there's a more important issue that sits behind all of this. Most of these guys aren't writing their own speeches to begin with, so in the end it's more about delivery then anything else. You could almost relate politicians to actors reading a script.”



I don’t think that point was missed at all, among all those thousands of words;

About ten posts up I told BW, “It took me (please, don't gush over me, now) all of about two minutes to make and post an affirmative argument for the Obama side; "Neither Barack Obama, nor Deval Patrick wrote this speech. A speech writer did. It's possible that since Patrick and Obama share a manager, they may also share a speech writer or two, who used swaths of a speech written for Patrick, in this one for Obama. In that instance, it would not be "plagiarism" in any strict sense of the term."

“Not a bad argument, the FACT is that neither Obama nor Patrick write their own speeches. It is very possible that they share speech writers, so that exchange of speeches could merely be due to some sloppy standards on the part of the Obama campaign. Hardly a surprising, or even unexpected possibility, as I'm sure you'd agree.”

JMK never critisized Chimp for using second grade school teachers to try and dumb down what his speech writers produce to his level.