We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
The New Yoik Times, that bastion of originality, says Barack Obama is a plagiarist, because he used the same motif for a lame speech as another politician. They're very picky over there at the Times. I've heard that they discipline their own employees for making stuff up and copying things without attribution. I know it's true because it happens so often that it's always fresh in your mind. You're a bad man, Obama:
The controversy arose after Mr. Obama, of Illinois, delivered a speech at a Democratic Party dinner in Wisconsin. He responded to criticism from Mrs. Clinton, of New York, who argued that Mr. Obama might deliver smooth speeches, but that she was better prepared to solve problems.
“Don’t tell me words don’t matter,” he said in his remarks. “ ‘I have a dream.’ Just words? ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal.’ Just words? ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself.’ Just words? Just speeches?”
The passage was similar to one used by Mr. Patrick in response to similar criticism.
Hey, I'm content to live in a world of unoriginal politicians, but far be it from me to doubt the Times when they hold everybody to a higher standard. Well, almost everybody.
That's from Noam Cohen at the New York Times, appended to the sterling and no doubt highly original article:
Hey, what's the lead time on developing stories over there at the Times? I bet I can guess. Of course, it's not my standard of plagiarism we're talking about here, it's the Times' we must adhere to: "...was similar to one used by..."
Not only would such a blatant ripoff without attribution be dishonorable, it would be sorta lame too, because the item was a re-run on Jan.3rd 2008. We ran it first on January 26th, 2007. All the unoriginal and stale news that's fit to print, I guess. Remember, it's the New York Times' world, I'm just trying to live in it. If you Google "new york times plagiarist," it returns 1,660,000 entries. That's a lot, and they all seem to be NYTimes employees, not Barack Obama. I guess it will return 1,660,001 after I hit "save." Sorry.
Let's get all Woodward and Bernstein, shall we? Wrong paper, but who cares? They don't seem to. Here goes: Hey Noam; what did you know and when did you know it?
I mean, their ads are just so cool and everything that they MUST be popular, right? Put simply, if you want to be cool, then you buy a Mac. What could be simpler? I wonder when they'll finally overtake those old-fashioned Windows computers. Any day now, I bet!
Wait -- this just in from a web site I maintained for a few years:
Monthly Log - January
Visits = 31,140
Windows = 98.6%
Unknown = 0.7%
Macintosh = 0.6%
Linux = 0.0%
WebTV = 0.0%
I love the way Mac is beat out by "Unknown". I mean, how insulting is that? "Unknown" would presumably be the few remaining Amiga, Atari, Tandy, NeXt, etc, die-hards out there.
But it's still an outrage! Macs should be much more popular! I mean, their ads are just so cool!!