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.
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 peopleÃ¢â‚¬â„¢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.
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’.
“IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m kind of wondering if Joe Mama has something to say to 4-7 at this moment.”
“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 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 isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t true, maybe it is.”
“IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll give her a mile of benefit of the doubt before I would believe a liberalÃ¢â‚¬â„¢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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 arenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢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.
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.”