The NY Post commissioned a study of Ann Coulter’s work and discovered she “cribbed liberally in her latest book”. Post article, online here (via comments), and Editor & Publisher has a synopsis.
I’m sure the Bush apologists on this blog will try to excuse Coulter as being a “comedian” or writing “tongue in cheek” so this doesn’t matter. Of course, the whole ethical issue of profiting by taking credit for other people’s work will never come into the discussion.
Did someone pee on your Wheaties this morning or something? Do I really need to trot out the previous posts by conservatives here stating their general distaste and lack of attention for Coulter?
Frankly, seems like you read her more than the conversatives here combined.
Don’t be an idiot. I don’t post here enough for you to be able to determine whether I’m a “Bush apologist” or in the “Coulter club”.
It’s at best sloppy for the Post not to include the examples. That means that we have to put some amount of trust in the Post. Do you trust the New York Post? They’re generally Bush apologists themselves, you know. Untrustworthy!
You may trust the New York Post, but I don’t. I asked for someone to go find the examples. You apparently didn’t want to bother. So it’s up to me to do the work.
Crooks and Liars has the video of Keith Oberman interviewing the owner of the company. He was asked by the post to review Coulter’s new book as well as the last 12 months of her columns. He said they did not finish reviewing/investigating all of the columns because they found enough plagarism that they felt they didn’t have to do all 12 months: http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/07/06/countdown-coulters-text-book-plagerism/
I love AC ! Although I do wish she would turn it down a little - I thought the Stevens soup thing was too much food for her detractors. I hope the story isn’t true, maybe it is. I’ll give her a mile of benefit of the doubt before I would believe a liberal’s accusations against a non-liberal.
Bush-haters’ newfound trust in the NYPost is truly inspirational, even if it’s completely transparent and opportunistic. That said, there’s no excuse for plagiarism or otherwise profiting by taking credit for other people’s work, and Coulter should face whatever consequences have befallen other plagiarizers (e.g., “noted historian” Doris Kearns Goodwin). And it goes without saying that Angrier’s bullsh*t about “Bush apologists” excusing Coulter is as lame as the ignorant ramblings of clowns like Keith Olbermann, whose show panders to the gullible and uninformed.
Absolutely nothing has “befallen” Kearns Goodwin. She settled a lawsuit. She’s back on various television shows, including Matthews, Meet the Press, and IMUS. She still writes.
Cmon team: “Ann Coulter” is a plagiarist? How is that news?
“Ann Coulter?” - even the most partisan Republican back here must recognize that, if she hadn’t been born, Rove/Mehlman/’the ghost of Atwater’ would have found a way to create her.
(Actually…???)
So Ann Coulter’s writings and ideas are not original ones?
I’m disappointed in my fellow Republicans for being offended at that notion.
We should be PROUD, people. Take that, stupid liberals! We can create a harpy monster, fill her craw with our rants, and send her out to destroy you, anytime we want…
A fun bit of bloggy goodness happened over the weekend that most people will have missed: Malkin, Hinderaker, Horowitz, and others making fools of themselves over a fluff piece in the Travel section of the NYT. Glenn Greenwald (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/ - scroll down) has all the details, but here’s the short version:
NYT publishes an innocuous article in its Travel section, describing the vacation homes of Rumsfeld and Cheney. Malkin* et. al. go apeshit, accusing the NYT of deliberately endangering the SecDef and VP in retaliation for critisism of some of the paper’s recent stories. Particular objection is made to a photo which supposedly reveals the location of a “hidden” security camera on Rumsfeld’s property. Greenwald (and Greg Sargent at The American Prospect) do ten minutes worth of actual journalism to discover what any sane person would have already guessed. That the locations of Rumsfeld’s and Cheney’s vactation homes are matters of public record. That articles like the NYT piece are fairly commonplace, and include a similar story on Clinton’s vacation home. That Rumsfeld in particular gave express permission for the story on his place, including the photos. That the Secret Service considers the whole thing a non-issue. Malkin and co. issue non-correction corrections, and hope noone will notice.
Good fun is had by all.
* Malkin lately seems to be upping the ante in her bid to peel off some of Coulter’s fan base.
If you read the posts she made, you’ll find she is a bit sensitive about publication of personal info since a recent campaign by the left of the blogosphere was publishing her phone number, address, personal details, including previous, and possibly current social security numbers.
Something tells me that is just a little more than ‘peeling off some of Coulter’s base’.
“I’m kind of wondering if Joe Mama has something to say to 4-7 at this moment.”
Very well.
“I love AC!”
Yikes.
“Although I do wish she would turn it down a little - I thought the Stevens soup thing was too much food for her detractors.”
I don’t pay much attention to Coulter and thus don’t know what “the Stevens soup thing” is referring to, but let me guess: J.P. Stevens’ opinions are those of a crazy old bat who has no teeth left and can only eat soup, or something like that. That’s typical Ann Coulter bile that is self-discrediting and nullifies any worthwhile point she was trying to make (e.g., that Stevens’ Hamdan opinion is a legal and logical travesty). Assuming I’m correct, there is much more wrong with what Coulter said than the mere fact that it was “too much food for her detractors.”
“I hope the story isn’t true, maybe it is.”
Ditto.
“I’ll give her a mile of benefit of the doubt before I would believe a liberal’s accusations against a non-liberal.”
Way too broad; it obviously depends on the accuser. Would I believe her over people like A&A, Mad Max, David, Nun Mouse, Michael Moore or Al Franken? You bet.
My impression of Malkin is based on more than just this one incident, but regarding your point about her sensitivity to this issue… fair enough. Possibly an (ever so slight) cheap shot on my part.
Jazz: So who in that “creation myth” (Ann Coulter - see? I don’t plagiarise) is the Wicked Witch of the West, then? Rove? And who takes the place of Dorothy et al., coming to defeat and free us from the witch and her winged monkeys??
Rove in witchy drag . . . now that is something to ponder! 8D
Ann Coulter is the poster child for the hypocrisy that has been running rampant on the right for years now. She writes a book trying to attack the liberal “religion” and take their anti-Christianity to task by using her trademark vile and hateful language. Cause you know, thats the Christian thing to do…
JM, to explain my stevens soup example. Excited over the prospect of finally weeding out 60 years of liberal justices wreaking havoc with the Republic, she said something akin to suggesting someone poison John Paul Stevens’ soup so Bush could have another appointee (the immediate next sentence said “joking”! which of course did nothing to ameliorate calls for an incitement prosecution, although even I’m not suggesting it ameliorated the bad taste).
My point was that sometimes even AC goes over the top for me (not too easy because I don’t wet my pants every time a satirist(at least who is clearly being satirical, uses even stinging (or angry) wit to bring us, by the power of inference to the actual point). But when that happens, I get more concerned that people will misuse her comments to detract from the point to be grasped (”food for her detractors”) rather than being concerned about hurt feelings (or the safety of Justices Stevens).
Case in point. She said on her weekly column after NARAL issued a press release or conference apposing John Roberts that the only way a bush nominee could get the support of NARAL would be to perform an abortion live on the Senate floor (preferably a partial birth one). Now that is not a statement for Orrin Hatch to make to Herman “Mills Lane” Kohl during a Judiciary Committee meeting. I thought it was hilarious as a matter of satire because it highlights the detestable enthusiasm (from the prospective of an anti-abortion/pro-lifer) of NARAL in safeguarding the unassailable right to abortion (especially so-called partial-birth).
AC is a live wire. Maybe I shouldn’t “love her”, but the recent New Jersey widows debate does little to make me ready to convert just yet. At first I thought she had gone too far, but then I realized, the controversy is proving her point - the chapter was about how victims are exploited (by the left, per her charge) so that political positions not accepted as reasonable on the merits are immunized from attack. All people could talk about for days w “Godless” was the “witches of East Brunswick” stuff. While more diverse critiques have since emerged (i guess), I did not hear one person angry over that comment discuss the victim-infallibility point. cf. Letterman and O’Reilly on Sheehan.
Anyway. I’ve said too much. Supposed to be studying.
Thanks for the comment. I am ever too curt or too verbose.
oh and I totally meant to omit “so called” from partial birth because I was attempting a sarcasm that didn’t work. Yikes, I would NEVER give any credit to that ridiculous use of “so-called”. I mean, it’s so-called because that’s the best way to call it. So-called is too pejorative. Unlessus yousus thinksus wesus shouldus alwayus speakus intheus strictestus ofus medicalus terminilogixus.
I see/read/hear Ann Coulter as the semi-right Howard Stern of the talk shows … she’s proud to have the mouth she has … and upfront about how people can take her or leave her …
No matter who is accused of plagiarism, I have discomfort when it’s “proven” on the basis of “24 words” here and “10 facts” there - especially when selected from a full-length book …
Chances are high that, in almost any book, one can find a 24 word part which has already been part of a prior copyrighted publication … some phrasings just work better in English … questions I would ask after being shown the 24 word identical parts would be
1) Is this an area where the author has prior knowledge or expertise or training ? Or is it an area where the auther only read two paragraphs on a subject with which the author wasn’t familiar and then proceeded to ‘paste’ one of the paragraphs into the author’s own text ?
2) How long ago did the author see the original phrase ? Was it a decade or more, perhaps as part of studying a subject ? Cuz a well-turned phrase can stick in one’s memory without one necessarily remembering the origin …
With respect to the 10 facts, the same 10 facts in the same order may well be plagiarism - or they may be the sensible order in which to put those 10 facts given the rest of the text putting the facts into the context of the entire publication …
(grin) When the D-list channels the Kos folk word for word (do I hear indignant cries of “NO ! Our own innocent D-list folk would never go near the outrageous Kos !”), is that plagiarism or homage ?
How about “There is no connection between Saddam Hussein and the events of 9/11″ - who owns the copyright to that sentence ? Do I ? Or does BrendanLoy.com ? Or someone else ?
The way I see it - the D-list folk and the Kos and DU folk are going to get their panties in a glazed twist about Ann - more because they want to than because of any genuine anti-plagiarism feelings …
And I, for one, am gonna let ‘em, and enjoy the spectacle …
1) The “plagiarism” cited all comprises less than 50 words. In my experience as a reader of political books on the left and right this is common. You give your opponent’s argument, and then knock it down. (usually as a strawman)
2) How can you plagiarize your own work? I bet if you analyzed Franken’s book, it’s also full of stuff he said before.
3) The only problem with Ann’s tactics is that they allow the Left to attack her rhetoric and tactics, and ignore her arguements and evidence. I wish she would write two books at the same time. One as she does now for those who get her humor and wit, and another under an assumed name that simply dryly sets out her arguements and evidence for the Left to read.
okay Alasdair, if you consider Ann Coulter to be only “semi-right” we have a serious problem in this country. Seriously, go back take the Coulter quiz… and tell me again that you think a woman whose quotations are confessable with a genocidal, megalomaniacal, fear mongering, psychopath is “semi-right” and really, the point of attempting to have a civilized debate with the right will be, more or less, at an end.
Oh, I don’t think that was a cheap shot. Nor do I even necessarily disagree with you. I thought she went overboard with the whole story as well, especially when the Secret Service and Rumsfeld’s office both said, ‘No, its fine by us’.
But she does have a point on the privacy issue. The NYT has been having fits on supposed violations of privacy right that though are large in scope are minute in detail. Yet they don’t mind printing what would easily be a violation (if the person in this case did mind) of privacy rights that is minute in scope, but large in detail.
I believe BLOY.COM has rights to “get the hell out of dodge” (at least when a storm is coming), but I still plan to use it with impugnity in my Lex Luthorian bid for prime florida real estate.
Eh! Sorry, I have to throw a flag on the argument. Its just a little too convenient to lump Coulter as a political mouthpiece and Stern as an entertainer.
I mean one says shocking, crude, and vile things to enlarge their base, while gaining media notoriety and condemnation. And the other does… well… the same thing.
Lojo, as I see it Howard Stern isn’t trying to use his position to push a political agenda. Yes Coulter uses similar styles to voice her opinion, vile though it may often be, but she does so to promote a political agenda and actually affect the way this country runs. From what i have seen/heard of Stern seems to me he wouldn’t care who is in office so long as he can keep doing what he does.
“Way too broad; it obviously depends on the accuser. Would I believe her over people like A&A, Mad Max, David, Nun Mouse, Michael Moore or Al Franken? You bet.”
I don’t know about A&A, David and a Nun Mouse, but I have no problem being in the same company as an Oscar Winning documentary maker and the entertainer who has spent the most amount of time in Iraq and Afghanistan for the USO. Thanks for the comparison. As for AC, what has Ann Coulter done for anyone but herself? Pretty much nothing.
I’ve noticed several of you Bush Army volunteers (because it’s easier than joining the real Army) have talked about how attractive Ann Coulter is. Coulter looks like a fucking man after a botched sex-change operation. Further evidence you people really are insane.
You know, not that I have any great love for AC, but I’m not sure this isn’t being blown out of proportion.
As Alasdair says, there are just some phrases that work better in the English language than others. And also, as probably anyone here who has done a lot of research can attest, when you read (and re-read…multiple times) a wide range of literature for research purposes, specific rhythms, syntax and phrases often get internalized.
I’m with Anon @ 4:09 that its highly unlikely a specific 24-word strand from a Planned Parenthood brochure would wind up in Ms. Coulter’s work by complete happenstance…but I’m not sure it wasn’t an accident. I mean, come on, if you’re going to plagarize, wouldn’t you pick up more than 50 words in a 100,000-word document?
What’s wonderful about this thread is that the anger on both sides will only add to Ann’s/RNC’s war chest. Way to go!
You see, when Max and Angrier and others attack poor ol’ Ann, that riles the hackles of the old Republican faithful, who confuse their antagonism (to Max) with attraction (to Ann..and er, her ideas).
She’s a creation of genius! The biggest idiot in this story is the poor fool who was poring over her “work”, closely investigating its “content”.
David, Howard Stern doesn’t push a political agenda, he pushes a cultural agenda–one that feeds right into the libertine view of the world, which is most assuredly not a common mindset on the Right.
Howard Stern doesn’t have an agenda at all, except to make money for himself. Unfortunately the dumbass cultural Republicans out there haven’t figured that one out and spend all of their time promoting Stern and Stern just profits from it.
Jazz-
As for Coulter, you might be right that she profits from this. However, I think it only hurts the Republicans in the end by promoting the image of the GOP as hateful and racist.
Actually, your last post is precisely what causes the Coulter money train to leave the station.
To wit:
Angrier says
“However, I think (Coulter) only hurts the Republicans in the end by promoting the image of the GOP as hateful and racist”,
then…
…the true blue Republican faithful folks think…
“Screw that Angrier, he’s a pinko commie, which crowd is all screwed up like we hear on the news all the time, in fact their flaws are best illustrated by…by…”
“Ann! I love Ann! And I am not hateful and racist, so that Angrier must be out to lunch! He’s probably just mad because Queen Ann called him what he…is!”
QED, Ann Coulter must not be a laughable creation of the Republican war machine, but rather a legitimate political thinker (!) making valid points against vengeful folks like Angrier!
Ring the cash register people. Can you smell what’s cooking?
fair enough Jazz, I’m just going to start referring to all Republicans as xenophobic, racists, full of bigotry and hatred and made up exclusively by rich fat cats and people that are too stupid to realize they are being manipulated by selfish power hungry psychopaths. Willingness to associate oneself with the Republican party means a willingness to accept these labels four yourself as totally accurate.
Say that I was the shining example of all the horrible traits that you associate with Republicanism.
Then mention that I have a book for sale on Amazon that trashes those who disagree with me (such as, in this case, you), and that no one should ever read such a piece of drivel from a mean old man like me!
(I don’t yet have a book on Amazon, but if you will cooperate, I can get one quickly)
Lojo, some on the left do it about the right and some on the right do it about the left. The problem is on the right it seems to be coming from people who are welcomed by the GOP powers that be, while on the left it comes from Bloggers like Kos who aren’t getting the same official recognition.
“The problem is on the right it seems to be coming from people who are welcomed by the GOP powers that be, while on the left it comes from Bloggers like Kos who aren’t getting the same official recognition.”
Figures. That statement only makes sense of you are completely clueless about Ann Coulter’s and Markos Moulitsas Zuniga’s status in their respective parties.
Last I checked, that was Michael Moore sitting next to Jimmy Carter at the DNC Convention.
And if you don’t think Kos is getting official recognition here is just a sampling of who attended Yearly Kos:
Rep. Krysten Sinema (D-AZ)
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Keynote
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)
Speaker
DNC Chairman Howard Dean
Ralph Neas
Gov. Tom Vilsack (D-IA)
Gov. Mark Warner (D-VA)
And that’s just people who went to take part to head luncheons and panel discussions.
David, I’m sorry, but the far left is the base most Democrats these days are pandering too.
It is interesting who the archetypical so-called speakers and shakers for each of the two major parties are as portrayed by the NYT/LAT/WaPo …
For the Dems, we are shown Senator Clinton, Senator Kerry, Senator Biden, Senator Kennedy, Senator Reid (well, he *used* to be), Representative Pelosi …
For the GOP, we are shown Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed, Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh …
My apologies i was not aware of the mainstream status of the Kos people, I don’t visit the website and was under the impression they were merely an online presence.
I don’t think that changes the fact that Anne is guilty of being a hatefilled hypocrit, nor do I think its right for her to get the mainstream support from the GOP leadership she does. But its entirely possible that the Kos crew should fall under the same criticism as well, but as I said I’m not familiar enough with what they do or say to know who or what they represent or how they say it.
“. . . nor do I think its right for [Ann Coulter] to get the mainstream support from the GOP leadership she does.”
Sorry, David. Until you can show me where Coulter has received “mainstream support from the GOP” (say, something equal to the kind of support that it’s been shown above Kos recieves from Democrats), I can’t take that statement seriously. And please don’t try to pass off Coulter’s book sales or appearances on Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly as “mainstream support from the GOP leadership.”
I agree with everything your saying these except for the mainstream GOP support. I could be wrong and missed someone, but where is a GOP senator or represenative coming out and supporting her? Really, I want to know to make sure its not one of the ones from my state.
As for Kos, I don’t read his site. :-)
Google and a search on the recent Yearly Kos convention. In 3 clicks I had the Agenda and attendees.
Joe Mama - but remember, per the NYT/LAT/WaPo (Whose Veracity is Unquestionable by The Faithful), Hannity and O’Reilly are the “GOP leadership” !
Unless, of course, David is bemoaning the fact that the GOP Senators and Representatives *aren’t* giving her the support that David feels she so richly deserves, perhaps ? Might David’s (Freudian) Slip be Showing ? (grin)
“The syndicator of Ann Coulter’s newspaper columns rejected allegations that she had lifted material from other sources, saying a review of the work in question turned up nothing that merited concern.”
July 6th, 2006 at 6:56:43 am
I’m sure the Bush apologists on this blog will try to excuse Coulter as being a “comedian” or writing “tongue in cheek” so this doesn’t matter. Of course, the whole ethical issue of profiting by taking credit for other people’s work will never come into the discussion.
July 6th, 2006 at 7:08:13 am
http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/copycatty_coulter_pilfers_prose__pro_nationalnews_philip_recchia.htm
I’d like to see the specific quotes. That’s standard practice for plagiarism stories. The Post doesn’t provide them. Someone go find them.
July 6th, 2006 at 7:19:11 am
Ha! The Coulter Club is already at it.
July 6th, 2006 at 7:32:06 am
Angrier -
Did someone pee on your Wheaties this morning or something? Do I really need to trot out the previous posts by conservatives here stating their general distaste and lack of attention for Coulter?
Frankly, seems like you read her more than the conversatives here combined.
July 6th, 2006 at 7:32:33 am
Don’t be an idiot. I don’t post here enough for you to be able to determine whether I’m a “Bush apologist” or in the “Coulter club”.
It’s at best sloppy for the Post not to include the examples. That means that we have to put some amount of trust in the Post. Do you trust the New York Post? They’re generally Bush apologists themselves, you know. Untrustworthy!
You may trust the New York Post, but I don’t. I asked for someone to go find the examples. You apparently didn’t want to bother. So it’s up to me to do the work.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Paper_confirms_Coulter_plagiarism_0702.html
There. That’s something we can actually work with.
July 6th, 2006 at 8:14:33 am
Crooks and Liars has the video of Keith Oberman interviewing the owner of the company. He was asked by the post to review Coulter’s new book as well as the last 12 months of her columns. He said they did not finish reviewing/investigating all of the columns because they found enough plagarism that they felt they didn’t have to do all 12 months: http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/07/06/countdown-coulters-text-book-plagerism/
July 6th, 2006 at 8:33:30 am
I love AC ! Although I do wish she would turn it down a little - I thought the Stevens soup thing was too much food for her detractors. I hope the story isn’t true, maybe it is. I’ll give her a mile of benefit of the doubt before I would believe a liberal’s accusations against a non-liberal.
July 6th, 2006 at 8:38:18 am
Bush-haters’ newfound trust in the NYPost is truly inspirational, even if it’s completely transparent and opportunistic. That said, there’s no excuse for plagiarism or otherwise profiting by taking credit for other people’s work, and Coulter should face whatever consequences have befallen other plagiarizers (e.g., “noted historian” Doris Kearns Goodwin). And it goes without saying that Angrier’s bullsh*t about “Bush apologists” excusing Coulter is as lame as the ignorant ramblings of clowns like Keith Olbermann, whose show panders to the gullible and uninformed.
July 6th, 2006 at 8:55:28 am
Absolutely nothing has “befallen” Kearns Goodwin. She settled a lawsuit. She’s back on various television shows, including Matthews, Meet the Press, and IMUS. She still writes.
July 6th, 2006 at 9:01:52 am
4-7, that would make you a ideological lunatic. You may safely be ignored as a raving nut in the future.
July 6th, 2006 at 9:25:54 am
“Absolutely nothing has ‘befallen’ Kearns Goodwin.”
EXACTLY.
July 6th, 2006 at 9:38:21 am
I’m kind of wondering if Joe Mama has something to say to 4-7 at this moment.
July 6th, 2006 at 9:54:09 am
Cmon team: “Ann Coulter” is a plagiarist? How is that news?
“Ann Coulter?” - even the most partisan Republican back here must recognize that, if she hadn’t been born, Rove/Mehlman/’the ghost of Atwater’ would have found a way to create her.
(Actually…???)
So Ann Coulter’s writings and ideas are not original ones?
I’m disappointed in my fellow Republicans for being offended at that notion.
We should be PROUD, people. Take that, stupid liberals! We can create a harpy monster, fill her craw with our rants, and send her out to destroy you, anytime we want…
(obligatory muhahahaha sound)
July 6th, 2006 at 9:54:53 am
A fun bit of bloggy goodness happened over the weekend that most people will have missed: Malkin, Hinderaker, Horowitz, and others making fools of themselves over a fluff piece in the Travel section of the NYT. Glenn Greenwald (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/ - scroll down) has all the details, but here’s the short version:
NYT publishes an innocuous article in its Travel section, describing the vacation homes of Rumsfeld and Cheney. Malkin* et. al. go apeshit, accusing the NYT of deliberately endangering the SecDef and VP in retaliation for critisism of some of the paper’s recent stories. Particular objection is made to a photo which supposedly reveals the location of a “hidden” security camera on Rumsfeld’s property. Greenwald (and Greg Sargent at The American Prospect) do ten minutes worth of actual journalism to discover what any sane person would have already guessed. That the locations of Rumsfeld’s and Cheney’s vactation homes are matters of public record. That articles like the NYT piece are fairly commonplace, and include a similar story on Clinton’s vacation home. That Rumsfeld in particular gave express permission for the story on his place, including the photos. That the Secret Service considers the whole thing a non-issue. Malkin and co. issue non-correction corrections, and hope noone will notice.
Good fun is had by all.
* Malkin lately seems to be upping the ante in her bid to peel off some of Coulter’s fan base.
July 6th, 2006 at 10:05:08 am
Aaron -
If you read the posts she made, you’ll find she is a bit sensitive about publication of personal info since a recent campaign by the left of the blogosphere was publishing her phone number, address, personal details, including previous, and possibly current social security numbers.
Something tells me that is just a little more than ‘peeling off some of Coulter’s base’.
July 6th, 2006 at 10:09:07 am
“I’m kind of wondering if Joe Mama has something to say to 4-7 at this moment.”
Very well.
“I love AC!”
Yikes.
“Although I do wish she would turn it down a little - I thought the Stevens soup thing was too much food for her detractors.”
I don’t pay much attention to Coulter and thus don’t know what “the Stevens soup thing” is referring to, but let me guess: J.P. Stevens’ opinions are those of a crazy old bat who has no teeth left and can only eat soup, or something like that. That’s typical Ann Coulter bile that is self-discrediting and nullifies any worthwhile point she was trying to make (e.g., that Stevens’ Hamdan opinion is a legal and logical travesty). Assuming I’m correct, there is much more wrong with what Coulter said than the mere fact that it was “too much food for her detractors.”
“I hope the story isn’t true, maybe it is.”
Ditto.
“I’ll give her a mile of benefit of the doubt before I would believe a liberal’s accusations against a non-liberal.”
Way too broad; it obviously depends on the accuser. Would I believe her over people like A&A, Mad Max, David, Nun Mouse, Michael Moore or Al Franken? You bet.
July 6th, 2006 at 10:10:37 am
Lojo,
My impression of Malkin is based on more than just this one incident, but regarding your point about her sensitivity to this issue… fair enough. Possibly an (ever so slight) cheap shot on my part.
July 6th, 2006 at 10:12:10 am
Jazz: So who in that “creation myth” (Ann Coulter - see? I don’t plagiarise) is the Wicked Witch of the West, then? Rove? And who takes the place of Dorothy et al., coming to defeat and free us from the witch and her winged monkeys??
Rove in witchy drag . . . now that is something to ponder! 8D
July 6th, 2006 at 10:19:41 am
Soren,
Who’s the wicked witch of the West? Why, that would be Lee Atwater, of course! Here’s his wikipedia entry, in case I am dating myself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater
As far as who is Dorothy to save the Left?
There is no Dorothy!
(hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!)
July 6th, 2006 at 11:01:10 am
Ann Coulter is the poster child for the hypocrisy that has been running rampant on the right for years now. She writes a book trying to attack the liberal “religion” and take their anti-Christianity to task by using her trademark vile and hateful language. Cause you know, thats the Christian thing to do…
July 6th, 2006 at 11:18:30 am
JM, to explain my stevens soup example. Excited over the prospect of finally weeding out 60 years of liberal justices wreaking havoc with the Republic, she said something akin to suggesting someone poison John Paul Stevens’ soup so Bush could have another appointee (the immediate next sentence said “joking”! which of course did nothing to ameliorate calls for an incitement prosecution, although even I’m not suggesting it ameliorated the bad taste).
My point was that sometimes even AC goes over the top for me (not too easy because I don’t wet my pants every time a satirist(at least who is clearly being satirical, uses even stinging (or angry) wit to bring us, by the power of inference to the actual point). But when that happens, I get more concerned that people will misuse her comments to detract from the point to be grasped (”food for her detractors”) rather than being concerned about hurt feelings (or the safety of Justices Stevens).
Case in point. She said on her weekly column after NARAL issued a press release or conference apposing John Roberts that the only way a bush nominee could get the support of NARAL would be to perform an abortion live on the Senate floor (preferably a partial birth one). Now that is not a statement for Orrin Hatch to make to Herman “Mills Lane” Kohl during a Judiciary Committee meeting. I thought it was hilarious as a matter of satire because it highlights the detestable enthusiasm (from the prospective of an anti-abortion/pro-lifer) of NARAL in safeguarding the unassailable right to abortion (especially so-called partial-birth).
AC is a live wire. Maybe I shouldn’t “love her”, but the recent New Jersey widows debate does little to make me ready to convert just yet. At first I thought she had gone too far, but then I realized, the controversy is proving her point - the chapter was about how victims are exploited (by the left, per her charge) so that political positions not accepted as reasonable on the merits are immunized from attack. All people could talk about for days w “Godless” was the “witches of East Brunswick” stuff. While more diverse critiques have since emerged (i guess), I did not hear one person angry over that comment discuss the victim-infallibility point. cf. Letterman and O’Reilly on Sheehan.
Anyway. I’ve said too much. Supposed to be studying.
Thanks for the comment. I am ever too curt or too verbose.
July 6th, 2006 at 11:19:27 am
the soup thing was not too far off from the Yushenko Unkraine poisoning, so I think that’s what she was lampooning.
July 6th, 2006 at 11:22:39 am
oh and I totally meant to omit “so called” from partial birth because I was attempting a sarcasm that didn’t work. Yikes, I would NEVER give any credit to that ridiculous use of “so-called”. I mean, it’s so-called because that’s the best way to call it. So-called is too pejorative. Unlessus yousus thinksus wesus shouldus alwayus speakus intheus strictestus ofus medicalus terminilogixus.
July 6th, 2006 at 1:06:27 pm
I see/read/hear Ann Coulter as the semi-right Howard Stern of the talk shows … she’s proud to have the mouth she has … and upfront about how people can take her or leave her …
No matter who is accused of plagiarism, I have discomfort when it’s “proven” on the basis of “24 words” here and “10 facts” there - especially when selected from a full-length book …
Chances are high that, in almost any book, one can find a 24 word part which has already been part of a prior copyrighted publication … some phrasings just work better in English … questions I would ask after being shown the 24 word identical parts would be
1) Is this an area where the author has prior knowledge or expertise or training ? Or is it an area where the auther only read two paragraphs on a subject with which the author wasn’t familiar and then proceeded to ‘paste’ one of the paragraphs into the author’s own text ?
2) How long ago did the author see the original phrase ? Was it a decade or more, perhaps as part of studying a subject ? Cuz a well-turned phrase can stick in one’s memory without one necessarily remembering the origin …
With respect to the 10 facts, the same 10 facts in the same order may well be plagiarism - or they may be the sensible order in which to put those 10 facts given the rest of the text putting the facts into the context of the entire publication …
(grin) When the D-list channels the Kos folk word for word (do I hear indignant cries of “NO ! Our own innocent D-list folk would never go near the outrageous Kos !”), is that plagiarism or homage ?
How about “There is no connection between Saddam Hussein and the events of 9/11″ - who owns the copyright to that sentence ? Do I ? Or does BrendanLoy.com ? Or someone else ?
The way I see it - the D-list folk and the Kos and DU folk are going to get their panties in a glazed twist about Ann - more because they want to than because of any genuine anti-plagiarism feelings …
And I, for one, am gonna let ‘em, and enjoy the spectacle …
July 6th, 2006 at 1:08:40 pm
1) The “plagiarism” cited all comprises less than 50 words. In my experience as a reader of political books on the left and right this is common. You give your opponent’s argument, and then knock it down. (usually as a strawman)
2) How can you plagiarize your own work? I bet if you analyzed Franken’s book, it’s also full of stuff he said before.
3) The only problem with Ann’s tactics is that they allow the Left to attack her rhetoric and tactics, and ignore her arguements and evidence. I wish she would write two books at the same time. One as she does now for those who get her humor and wit, and another under an assumed name that simply dryly sets out her arguements and evidence for the Left to read.
July 6th, 2006 at 1:35:44 pm
okay Alasdair, if you consider Ann Coulter to be only “semi-right” we have a serious problem in this country. Seriously, go back take the Coulter quiz… and tell me again that you think a woman whose quotations are confessable with a genocidal, megalomaniacal, fear mongering, psychopath is “semi-right” and really, the point of attempting to have a civilized debate with the right will be, more or less, at an end.
July 6th, 2006 at 2:11:44 pm
Aaron -
Oh, I don’t think that was a cheap shot. Nor do I even necessarily disagree with you. I thought she went overboard with the whole story as well, especially when the Secret Service and Rumsfeld’s office both said, ‘No, its fine by us’.
But she does have a point on the privacy issue. The NYT has been having fits on supposed violations of privacy right that though are large in scope are minute in detail. Yet they don’t mind printing what would easily be a violation (if the person in this case did mind) of privacy rights that is minute in scope, but large in detail.
July 6th, 2006 at 2:15:28 pm
I find it interesting that the plagiarism expert mentioned in the article, John Barrie, has a Ph.D. from UC Berkeley.
Just interesting, that’s all.
btw: Never had the desire to read any of Coulter’s books. I tend to stay away from political books and focus on normal non-fiction.
July 6th, 2006 at 2:54:16 pm
Ummm Al,
Howard Stern == Entertainer
Ann Coulter == Political mouthpiece
There is a BIG difference.
July 6th, 2006 at 2:57:29 pm
Shock jock and shock jockette ? Apart from sexist considerations, how big is the difference, really ?
If we didn’t respond to either of ‘em, they’d find different jobs … WE give each and both of them their energy …
(OK - so Ann is prettier - at least until she opens her mouth … so what ?)
July 6th, 2006 at 3:18:42 pm
I believe BLOY.COM has rights to “get the hell out of dodge” (at least when a storm is coming), but I still plan to use it with impugnity in my Lex Luthorian bid for prime florida real estate.
July 6th, 2006 at 3:28:36 pm
David -
Eh! Sorry, I have to throw a flag on the argument. Its just a little too convenient to lump Coulter as a political mouthpiece and Stern as an entertainer.
I mean one says shocking, crude, and vile things to enlarge their base, while gaining media notoriety and condemnation. And the other does… well… the same thing.
July 6th, 2006 at 4:09:53 pm
Chances are NOT that one would find identital 24 word passages from any book that would match a Planned Parenthood pamphlet.
Of course, Ann had used more than a single 24 word passage. She’s a serial plagarist.
July 6th, 2006 at 4:38:51 pm
Lojo, as I see it Howard Stern isn’t trying to use his position to push a political agenda. Yes Coulter uses similar styles to voice her opinion, vile though it may often be, but she does so to promote a political agenda and actually affect the way this country runs. From what i have seen/heard of Stern seems to me he wouldn’t care who is in office so long as he can keep doing what he does.
July 6th, 2006 at 4:40:13 pm
yea, some liberal group targets Coulter.. i’m shocked. I’m sure they did the same due diligence on Michael Moore’s books and Al Franken…
July 6th, 2006 at 4:50:52 pm
David -
That’s a point, but with Coulter I would argue she is trying to push a personal agenda, cloaked as a political one.
July 6th, 2006 at 4:51:21 pm
C Bassett-
When did A&A become your little bitch? Maybe you should have looked the shit up for yourself to begin with. What a fucking tool you are!
July 6th, 2006 at 4:56:46 pm
Joe Mama-
“Way too broad; it obviously depends on the accuser. Would I believe her over people like A&A, Mad Max, David, Nun Mouse, Michael Moore or Al Franken? You bet.”
I don’t know about A&A, David and a Nun Mouse, but I have no problem being in the same company as an Oscar Winning documentary maker and the entertainer who has spent the most amount of time in Iraq and Afghanistan for the USO. Thanks for the comparison. As for AC, what has Ann Coulter done for anyone but herself? Pretty much nothing.
July 6th, 2006 at 5:05:43 pm
I’ve noticed several of you Bush Army volunteers (because it’s easier than joining the real Army) have talked about how attractive Ann Coulter is. Coulter looks like a fucking man after a botched sex-change operation. Further evidence you people really are insane.
July 6th, 2006 at 5:06:53 pm
You know, not that I have any great love for AC, but I’m not sure this isn’t being blown out of proportion.
As Alasdair says, there are just some phrases that work better in the English language than others. And also, as probably anyone here who has done a lot of research can attest, when you read (and re-read…multiple times) a wide range of literature for research purposes, specific rhythms, syntax and phrases often get internalized.
I’m with Anon @ 4:09 that its highly unlikely a specific 24-word strand from a Planned Parenthood brochure would wind up in Ms. Coulter’s work by complete happenstance…but I’m not sure it wasn’t an accident. I mean, come on, if you’re going to plagarize, wouldn’t you pick up more than 50 words in a 100,000-word document?
July 6th, 2006 at 6:34:08 pm
The revisionists are working feverishly on this one, aren’t they?
July 6th, 2006 at 6:43:17 pm
C Bassett-
When did A&A become your little bitch?
When did you become his? He can defend himself.
July 6th, 2006 at 6:46:02 pm
C Bassett-
Get me a turkey potpie, bitch! Ha!
July 6th, 2006 at 7:26:43 pm
What’s wonderful about this thread is that the anger on both sides will only add to Ann’s/RNC’s war chest. Way to go!
You see, when Max and Angrier and others attack poor ol’ Ann, that riles the hackles of the old Republican faithful, who confuse their antagonism (to Max) with attraction (to Ann..and er, her ideas).
She’s a creation of genius! The biggest idiot in this story is the poor fool who was poring over her “work”, closely investigating its “content”.
Talk about not getting it…
July 6th, 2006 at 8:43:59 pm
David, Howard Stern doesn’t push a political agenda, he pushes a cultural agenda–one that feeds right into the libertine view of the world, which is most assuredly not a common mindset on the Right.
July 7th, 2006 at 6:34:31 am
Howard Stern doesn’t have an agenda at all, except to make money for himself. Unfortunately the dumbass cultural Republicans out there haven’t figured that one out and spend all of their time promoting Stern and Stern just profits from it.
Jazz-
As for Coulter, you might be right that she profits from this. However, I think it only hurts the Republicans in the end by promoting the image of the GOP as hateful and racist.
July 7th, 2006 at 10:19:59 am
Angrier -
Actually, your last post is precisely what causes the Coulter money train to leave the station.
To wit:
Angrier says
“However, I think (Coulter) only hurts the Republicans in the end by promoting the image of the GOP as hateful and racist”,
then…
…the true blue Republican faithful folks think…
“Screw that Angrier, he’s a pinko commie, which crowd is all screwed up like we hear on the news all the time, in fact their flaws are best illustrated by…by…”
“Ann! I love Ann! And I am not hateful and racist, so that Angrier must be out to lunch! He’s probably just mad because Queen Ann called him what he…is!”
QED, Ann Coulter must not be a laughable creation of the Republican war machine, but rather a legitimate political thinker (!) making valid points against vengeful folks like Angrier!
Ring the cash register people. Can you smell what’s cooking?
July 7th, 2006 at 11:31:30 am
fair enough Jazz, I’m just going to start referring to all Republicans as xenophobic, racists, full of bigotry and hatred and made up exclusively by rich fat cats and people that are too stupid to realize they are being manipulated by selfish power hungry psychopaths. Willingness to associate oneself with the Republican party means a willingness to accept these labels four yourself as totally accurate.
July 7th, 2006 at 12:08:38 pm
Dane,
If you do so, will you do me a small favor?
Say that I was the shining example of all the horrible traits that you associate with Republicanism.
Then mention that I have a book for sale on Amazon that trashes those who disagree with me (such as, in this case, you), and that no one should ever read such a piece of drivel from a mean old man like me!
(I don’t yet have a book on Amazon, but if you will cooperate, I can get one quickly)
(especially if I plagiarize)
July 7th, 2006 at 1:24:54 pm
dcl -
And this is different from what most of the left has been doing how?
July 7th, 2006 at 1:47:58 pm
Lojo, some on the left do it about the right and some on the right do it about the left. The problem is on the right it seems to be coming from people who are welcomed by the GOP powers that be, while on the left it comes from Bloggers like Kos who aren’t getting the same official recognition.
July 7th, 2006 at 2:50:20 pm
“The problem is on the right it seems to be coming from people who are welcomed by the GOP powers that be, while on the left it comes from Bloggers like Kos who aren’t getting the same official recognition.”
Figures. That statement only makes sense of you are completely clueless about Ann Coulter’s and Markos Moulitsas Zuniga’s status in their respective parties.
July 7th, 2006 at 2:52:15 pm
If you actually want to see comparisons of the passages Coulter purportedly plagiarized, go here:
http://www.redstate.com/story/2006/7/7/105243/7282
July 7th, 2006 at 3:36:50 pm
David -
Last I checked, that was Michael Moore sitting next to Jimmy Carter at the DNC Convention.
And if you don’t think Kos is getting official recognition here is just a sampling of who attended Yearly Kos:
Rep. Krysten Sinema (D-AZ)
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Keynote
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)
Speaker
DNC Chairman Howard Dean
Ralph Neas
Gov. Tom Vilsack (D-IA)
Gov. Mark Warner (D-VA)
And that’s just people who went to take part to head luncheons and panel discussions.
David, I’m sorry, but the far left is the base most Democrats these days are pandering too.
July 7th, 2006 at 3:37:59 pm
David -
Oh, and this is pretty official too:
http://obama.senate.gov/blog/050930-tone_truth_and_the_democratic_party/
July 7th, 2006 at 3:59:31 pm
Lojo @ 1:24 - no fair pre-plagiarising me !
(grin)
(Even to the tone of voice, I suspect, dammit !)
(bigger grin)
July 7th, 2006 at 4:12:18 pm
It is interesting who the archetypical so-called speakers and shakers for each of the two major parties are as portrayed by the NYT/LAT/WaPo …
For the Dems, we are shown Senator Clinton, Senator Kerry, Senator Biden, Senator Kennedy, Senator Reid (well, he *used* to be), Representative Pelosi …
For the GOP, we are shown Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed, Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh …
July 7th, 2006 at 4:26:14 pm
My apologies i was not aware of the mainstream status of the Kos people, I don’t visit the website and was under the impression they were merely an online presence.
I don’t think that changes the fact that Anne is guilty of being a hatefilled hypocrit, nor do I think its right for her to get the mainstream support from the GOP leadership she does. But its entirely possible that the Kos crew should fall under the same criticism as well, but as I said I’m not familiar enough with what they do or say to know who or what they represent or how they say it.
July 7th, 2006 at 6:48:59 pm
“. . . nor do I think its right for [Ann Coulter] to get the mainstream support from the GOP leadership she does.”
Sorry, David. Until you can show me where Coulter has received “mainstream support from the GOP” (say, something equal to the kind of support that it’s been shown above Kos recieves from Democrats), I can’t take that statement seriously. And please don’t try to pass off Coulter’s book sales or appearances on Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly as “mainstream support from the GOP leadership.”
July 7th, 2006 at 8:55:19 pm
David -
I agree with everything your saying these except for the mainstream GOP support. I could be wrong and missed someone, but where is a GOP senator or represenative coming out and supporting her? Really, I want to know to make sure its not one of the ones from my state.
As for Kos, I don’t read his site. :-)
Google and a search on the recent Yearly Kos convention. In 3 clicks I had the Agenda and attendees.
July 9th, 2006 at 10:48:26 am
Joe Mama - but remember, per the NYT/LAT/WaPo (Whose Veracity is Unquestionable by The Faithful), Hannity and O’Reilly are the “GOP leadership” !
Unless, of course, David is bemoaning the fact that the GOP Senators and Representatives *aren’t* giving her the support that David feels she so richly deserves, perhaps ? Might David’s (Freudian) Slip be Showing ? (grin)
July 11th, 2006 at 1:17:22 pm
DOH!
“The syndicator of Ann Coulter’s newspaper columns rejected allegations that she had lifted material from other sources, saying a review of the work in question turned up nothing that merited concern.”
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/11/D8IPPLI89.html