Letters to the Editor
Number Six
Published Letters: 127 Editor's Choice: 2
-
Four things...
[Read the article: The "plagiarism" problem]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]1) When Patrick was running for Governor in 2006, he was accused of stealing Obama's rhetoric from 2004. Now Obama is accused of stealing from Patrick. Huh? Is it too hard to grasp that two men who have known each other for years, obviously have had many political discussions, might agree closely on many things, and riff off each other from time to time?
2) Trying to hold stump speeches to the same rules of formal essay citation is silly. How exactly would a footnote work in the spoken word? Some kind of hand gesture or vocal inflection?
3) Obama did not plagarise Patrick. He paraphrased. There is a difference. I will admit though, the argument is the same one Patrick used against Healy and Reilly when they tried this 'words don't matter' angle against him. Does this really mean that Obama can't use the same refutation because Patrick already did, regardless of how much he sincerely believes it to be both effective and true? That's like saying because my friend used a bridge to cross the river I have to swim.
4) FDR, whose famous line "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself" was paraphrased almost exactly the same way from Henry David Thoreau, yet never credited. Does this make FDR a plagarist too?
5) And what about Clinton stealing her blockbuster line almost word for word from John Edwards? What's that? Somehow I don't think he gave her permission to use it, considering he hadn't dropped out of the race yet when she took it.
-
It's just bad satire
[Read the article: Quote of the day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There's no need to take this bit seriously. Brooks is trying to be humorous here. I mean, its not actually funny, and Brooks comes off like a smug prick, but bad satire is still just satire. No need to freak out.
-
AKA Smith responding to Uncle Fester...
[Read the article: The "plagiarism" problem]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But Obama apparently did exactly that when he said a similar thing in New Hampshire. So couldn't it be argued that he inadvertently dropped the line on accident in the heat of giving the speech?
-
@aka Smith
[Read the article: The "plagiarism" problem]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I can respect that view. I'm still not there with you on it, but you put up a good argument. Although I will concede it was a mistake for Obama to riff so excessively, I really don't see it as much of anything whatsoever. Especially as I stated earlier how FDR did it even more blatantly in his inauguration speech.
I still don't think this is really much more than the Clinton campaign trying to fabricate a problem of a candidate they can't find anything legitimate to criticize about. And for me that says a lot of worse things about Clinton as a campaigner and a politician than it says about Obama.
-
@ Dana Runs
[Read the article: The "plagiarism" problem]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But Hillary has done it. She completely copied Edwards' Blockbuster comment from a debate a while back and was using the very same line the next week.
-
Unfortunate to hear this about a truly great film
[Read the article: The truth about "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]While there is always going to be discrepencies between real life and what is portrayed in a narrative work based on real life, either a book or a film, it is really unfortunate that it appears that Bauby's ex chose the film as a petty way to get back at Bauby's girlfriend, as the article seems to be suggesting. It really implies that she is a person of truly bad character to do something that ugly.
Still, I will not let this fact take away from my love of this film. Works of art should ideally be viewed separate from their real life influences. I know that sounds pretentious to say, and I feel pretentious just typing it, but this film is going to be around longer than all the people it represents will be, and it should be allowed to stand on its own, independent of the occurrences of real life or even the book it is based on.
-
mountain out of a mole hill
[Read the article: MSNBC's Shuster returns from suspension]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm actually a little disgusted that a sincere apology wasn't enough, and that Shuster actually got suspended over this. I won't go so far as to say its chilling to see a campaign able to bully the media over this, but seriously, this was really worth a suspension?
Chelsea Clinton is not a kid anymore, hasn't been on for almost a decade. And now that she is out on the campaign trail, someone should be critical of how she seems to be allowed to go by a double standard that no other advocate is allowed. She can't be out there making speeches and personally working super delegates and still expect the protection rules to be applied. That's a double standard that is lame.
Calling it pimping was bad, I won't say otherwise. But the substance of the criticism still seems to have not been answered. But apparently the Clinton campaign's ability to smack back over the language of a criticism and avoid dealing with the substance at all has successfully scared away the media from talking about this point at all.
-
C'Mon, Berkeley.
[Read the article: Opus]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I quote from a particular old school Sunday strip from a few years back:
"Please don't sneeze while flossing your uppers."
Busted. Not horribly so, admittedly, but, busted, nonetheless.
And to obtain my silence of not getting more specific about this, I want my "keep quiet" gift of a Bill the Cat T-shirt in black. Or a Bill for Prez '88, or '84 if at all possible. In a size X-large, so it'll shrink into a good loose fitting size in a wash or two.