Updated: Putrid Presidential Plagiarism

Democrats, Ethics, Ilana Mercer, Intellectualism, Journalism, Morality

As you know, the plagiarism of ideas is, especially to this writer, a litmus test for bottom-feeding scum, plain and simple. Why is lifting ideas worse than verbatim copying? Because only the latter is legally actionable. “Smart” people know this—they know how easy it is to get away with lifting ideas, since that’s legally kosher, if utterly odious and unethical.
Those familiar with my work know that I cite religiously and faithfully—I cite even when I don’t have to really. That’s because of my ethics. On a personal level, it’s because I’m not threatened by anyone. Maybe I should be, but I’m not. Why borrow what I may be able to best?
My last brush with this contemptible conduct came about because of a brilliant and ethical colleague—if not for him, I would not have known I had been kind of victimized yet again. He was incredulous when he came across what he recognized to be my ideas, and those of a primary source I had quoted diligently in my essay, all appropriated as the offending writer’s own.
I fought back, and got a citation appended to this second-hand text. I believe you must fight back, so that those who imagine they deserve credit for your ideas pay by losing face. They now know you’re on to them.
In my case, oddly enough, people whom I quite respected have nicked my rather idiosyncratic formulations. Sean nailed it (I could credit myself with this insight, but it’s his): “what’s at play in these instances,” he explained, “is someone who believes he has said what you said, and in the event that he hasn’t, he, being so great, thinks he deserved to have said it.” Something along the lines of, “Who the hell is Ilana to write stuff that sounds as though I ought to have written it?”
Ugly, unmanly sentiments indeed.
Prior to this last episode, about which I would not have been the wiser without my ethical colleague, there was the “professor”—they are a dime a dozen—with no paper or pixel trail to his name, who decided he deserved credit for my vindicating of Michael Vick.
If you recall, I was the first to offer a detailed and rather idiosyncratic defense of Vick’s dog fighting. Sean Hannity said he had not found anyone other than me to offer a coherent defense, which is why he criss-crossed me on his show. My piece was later published in the Orange County Register too.
Google “Defense Michael Vick.” Who’s right up there after Whoopi Goldberg (who, for obvious reasons, would come first)?
My arguments continued on the blog and took a very distinguishing tack, to which the good “professor” adhered closely. His editor defended this no-name dog of a writer. Yeah, this from a bunch that never shuts up about values—the Values Vulgarizers. (Not to mention the violators of the injunction against Second-Handerism.)
So what do I think of the allegation that Obama lifted words not his for one of his uninspiring Hear Me Roar speeches? If it’s true, I agree with Howard Wolfson, the Clinton campaign’s communications director, that, “When an author plagiarizes from another author there is damage done to two different parties. One is to the person he plagiarized from. The other is to the reader.”
While Obama is accused of some lengthy appropriating absent any word of credit to the primary source, his come-back to Hillary is as impoverished as his plagiarism practice. Obama says she borrowed his “signature chant ‘fired up and ready to go’ in Davenport, Iowa, and later her echoing of his rally cry, ‘Yes, we can!’”
Puh-leeze. Next our “intellectual” will be accusing Hillary of stealing the “You Go Girl” bimbo battle cry. The above is clearly Hillary’s mocking paraphrase of Obama’s call to arms. Before he makes his next empty accusation, Imam Obama ought to know that “Ouch” has also moved into the public domain.
This particular professor is a bit shabby in this department. All not very surprising, considering my own tales of woe with professors.

Update: Obama ought to have said, “To paraphrase my friend, x,” or something along those lines. However you spin it, it’s not very elevated, coming from a man who prides himself on the proper use of words. Sourcing is part of the proper use of words.

Looking for Love in the All the Wrong Places

Africa, Bush, Constitution, Foreign Aid, Terrorism

As if you needed more proof of Bush’s worth:

Africans love him—and not only because he is a Strongman, a real tribal chief—but because he has been more generous with his tribe’s money that his predecessors.

The idea that Bush has saved African lives is idiotic—any government-to-government transfer, which is all foreign aid is—goes to maintaining the mandarins that man the aid bureaucracies in the US, and straight into the Swiss bank accounts of the recipient African heads of country. The latter don’t even conceal their cupidity.

American individuals, estates, foundations, and corporations gave $241 billion to charity in 2003. Foreign aid through the state amounts to only $15 billion per year, most of which is squandered.

If we are to help Mr. Shabalala, who has practically screwed himself to death (and infected his wife with HIV, private, voluntary charity is the mightiest, most moral, and most efficient way to do so.

Bush’s legacy on this front is to have gone from preaching “trade not aid,” to instituting trade tariffs, and increasing U.S. foreign aid during his unfortunate tenure many times over. Where Bush has certainly innovated is by tying new spending to his terrorism-fighting strategy, thus ending for good the debate on the corrupting effects of foreign welfare, since anything that ostensibly fights terrorism is sacrosanct.

Improving Nature The Randian Way

Britain, Gender, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Objectivism, Reason

I have a heroic Randian friend in the UK—you have to be a lager-than-life character to make vast fortunes in that Fabian climate. When he’s not negotiating mega-million pound acquisitions, he partakes in long-distance Triathlons—qualified for the World Championships last year, and aims to do so again this year.

He said this today:

“If men had to do this [childbirth], all the resources in the world would have been put into getting the process easier, for sure.”

This is so great—just up Mercer’s logical lane—because, he, at once, 1) acknowledge the great hardship of childbirth. And 2) man’s general superiority—on the facts of it—and drive to streamline and innovate that which is imperfect.

This is just up Mercer’s logical and inspirational alleys: The Man wants to improve on nature. In this realm, nature sucks. If not for technology, I have no doubt I’d have died in childbirth. An awful business.

The Hillary, Hussein, McCain Axis of Evil

Barack Obama, Elections 2008, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Politics

“So what do I think of the next president? I didn’t like his predecessor’s ‘New New Deal,’ so why would I like Barack Hussein Obama’s Great Great Society?

H. L. Mencken called elections ‘a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods.’ Henry Hazlitt said that “government has nothing to give to anybody that it doesn’t first take from somebody else.” But while robbing Peter to pay Paul is a philosophical given to the clowns competing for the commander-in-chief’s crown, it’s really much worse than that.

The nation’s treasury is empty. Right now, and for the foreseeable future, the three musketeers plan on a whole lot of deficit spending. To keep running-up debt on an account that is not yours is fraud by any other name. It’s manifestly clear how close on the unconstitutional continuum Hillary, Hussein and McCain stand.”

We lead the WND Commentary Page today with “The Hillary, Hussein, McCain Axis of Evil.”