Discriminations

Almost everyone agrees that the rules are different for politicians. For one thing, they are expected to use speech writers. For another thing, slogans that would come off sounding empty and stupid if said by a normal person or student ("ask not what your country ...") are considered great wisdom when coming from the mouths of politicians. This is what we expect from our politicians and we demand no more.

By NO MEANS an endorsement for Mr.Obama, or Mr. Patrick.

I agree that mere politics is not to be held to the same allegedly discriminating standards as academic, patent, or entertainment, principals of "intellectual property". (Sampling? Tribute? Hardly.)
Sloganeering? Jingoism?
Perhaps.
IN A CASE SUCH AS THIS, without complaint-perhaps, arguably, with tacit endorsement -by the (reasonably accessible) "source of the work", then I wouldn't call plagiarism of what has become a mere text.

I'm with LTEC, but he beat me to it. No one expected John F. Kennedy to say, "In the words of my speechwriter, Ted Sorenson, ask not what your country..."

I'm echoing previous posters a little. One of my problems with the notion of "plagiarism" in political oratory is the implication that there could somehow be footnotes and a bibliography. Handing in assignments written by others, with your own name at the top, is dishonest because you want their work to benefit you. Giving a speech penned by others isn't quite the same thing, because at least in theory, oratory should stir us all to help our country, etc. I don't know if voters expect originality so much as truth and courage.

I agree that Obama is being given a pass here; he is always getting a pass from something or other. It's not that the press doesn't love smearing people, it's just refraining as regards BO because it really believes he will bring about the promised land. Any other candidate with ties that close to racialist rabble-rousers would have been raked over the coals by now. His celebrated oratory wouldn't mean much if the editors of reality only chose his worst one-liners to play on the nightly morality injection.

As I read these comments, no one really disagrees that it is plagiarism to take the idea, words, phrases, construction, organization of someone else, passing it off as your own. The only disagreement is whether we hold politicians to the same standard for plagiarism as everyone else.

Normally, I would say no. Politicians hire speechwriters, after all, and we don’t regard their using words that they’ve bought as plagiarizing. But that would be normally. Obama is not normal on the words front. Words are not the expression but the substance of his campaign. Pundits and partisans have been swooning over his use of words, and he himself has made his speechifying the cornerstone of his campaign, a primary reason to vote for him.

Thus, in my view, it is entirely legitimate to point out that, to the degree he plagiarizes, he’s a fraud for claiming as his own words that were not.

His situation is somewhat analogous to a right-wing, family values, cultural conservative caught in a homosexual tryst. You can be sure (by looking at examples, for instance) that when that happens he is lambasted for hypocrisy, and worse, by many people who actually think there’s nothing really wrong with a homosexual tryst.

In the case of Obama, however, there is something wrong with plagiarism, and it’s his own fault, and the fault of his supporters, that we don’t give him the bye on that issue that is normally extended to other politicians.

"that america should be as good as its promise" that's the death of the country, right there. because it never will be. other cultures have the advantage over the US in this, they never made any promises so they can't be held to anything. perhaps that is why western liberals, including black people in america, have no objection to the human rights situation in sudan or all over africa. the message seems to be don't make any promises to begin with. if america took back its promise, would that make mrs. obama like it better?

Anita writes:

>>>""that america should be as good as its promise" that's the death of the country, right there. because it never will be."

Then why hold this nation accountable for ANYTHING? Why aspire to be better, or achieve more, Anita?
In your above sentence you're displaying HOPELESSNESS.
And they accuse ME of negativity.

Anita writes:

>>>"perhaps that is why western liberals, including black people in america, have no objection to the human rights situation in sudan or all over africa."

Anita, I don't know who you've been hanging out with, or what you've read, but if you think... oh--read for yourself about the wonderful work of "lefty liberal Hollywood star" Don Cheadle, and friends:

http://www.looktothestars.org/celebrity/447-don-cheadle

>>>"Students Against Genocide (SAG) is led by a committee of students from the Claremont Colleges in California. Founded in 2004, SAG's focus has been the genocide in Darfur, a western region of Sudan where government-sponsored militias have killed more than 400,000 and displaced more than 2.5 million civilians. SAG has worked to raise awareness by researching the conflict, participating in STANDfast, distributing information on campus, and maintaining this website. To ensure that American policymakers were aware of the concerns of college students nationwide, some of SAG’s members visited Washington, D.C. and met with members of 20 congressional offices and the Department of State."

http://www.studentsagainstgenocide.org/about.php

>>>"Representative Charles Rangel (Democrat of New York) was arrested July 13 as he blocked the entrance to the Sudanese Embassy to protest the Khartoum government's support for militia groups that have killed between 15,000 and 30,000 people in Sudan's Darfur region while making a mockery of international efforts to stop what the lawmaker termed "genocide."

Standing with crossed arms in front of the embassy's door on Washington's Massachusetts Avenue at high noon, Rangel and a band of about 50 protesters sang the defiant civil rights anthem "We Shall Overcome," evoking similar protests against racism in America during the 1960s and against apartheid in South Africa in the 1980s.

The protesters, joined by Armenian-Americans who claim their people suffered a similar genocide under the Turks last century, also unfurled a large banner that proclaimed: "Slavery & Genocide = Sudan" while they chanted: "Stop the Genocide. Free Darfur Now" and "Every Life Is Precious. Stop the Genocide in Sudan."

http://jeffweintraub.blogspot.com/2004/07/african-american-political-figures.html

And I don't suppose you recall the shocking liberal parade of musicians who wrote and performed "Do They Know it's Christmas?", "We Are the World", which both spawned "Live Aid"-- oh, you forgot about--

>>>"Live Aid was a multi-venue rock music concert was held on July 13, 1985 (1985-07-13). The event was organised by Bob Geldof and Midge Ure, and opened by Status Quo, to raise funds for famine relief in Ethiopia. Billed as the 'global jukebox', the main sites for the event were Wembley Stadium, London (attended by 82,000 people) and JFK Stadium, Philadelphia (attended by about 99,000 people), with some acts performing at other venues such as Sydney and Moscow. It was one of the largest-scale satellite link-ups and television broadcasts of all time: an estimated 1.5 billion viewers, across 100 countries, watched the live broadcast....

...The next day, news reports stated that between £40 and £50 million had been raised. Now, it is estimated that around £150m has been raised for famine relief as a direct result of the concerts."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_Aid

Then there was my personal favorite, "Sun City":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYHiA568P6E

(I must admit, watching Little Steven stare down the camera in that video 20 years later still sends a charge, doesn't it? Sopranos or not.)

So where you come off with these notions that " western liberals, including black people in america, have no objection to the human rights situation in sudan or all over africa" is unfathomable to me.

But I guess you're just lacking the audacity of hope, huh?

--Cobra

I've read Anita's comments long enough to know that she can defend herself, but in this case I think you are deliberatly misreading her.

That America can not reach its promises is not a sign of hopelessness. It simply means that the promises are so great that they always remain one step above us. It's a very nice thought, and I think we can all support it.

Do western liberals ignore Sudan? Yes. I've posted on Sudan here, only to be told (1) it is not our problem, or (2) America is just as bad. Outside of this blog, it is very easy to find many who believe that Sudan is a false flag, a fake issue that is raised only to ignore issues at home. Read the comments anytime Eric Reeves writes at CommentIsFree.

The situation with Darfur is changing, however. And yes, you see much more being said about it now than before. But the liberal conundrum is ... what can we suuport? A military solution? Not likely.

Dom writes:

>>>"Do western liberals ignore Sudan? Yes. I've posted on Sudan here, only to be told (1) it is not our problem, or (2) America is just as bad."

Umm...could you point out when you posted that, Dom? Not doubting you posted it, but I just want to know who the posters were who responded. Discriminations isn't exactly a bastion for "western liberals", you know.

Dom writes:

>>>"And yes, you see much more being said about it now than before. But the liberal conundrum is ... what can we suuport? A military solution? Not likely."

Especially with what the Bush Administration has DONE to the United States Military:

>>>"The Iraq war has strained U.S. forces to the point where they could not fight another large-scale war, according to a survey of military officers.

Of those surveyed, 88 percent believe the demands of the Iraq war have "stretched the U.S. military dangerously thin."

On the other hand, 56 percent of the officers disagree that the war has "broken" the military.

Eighty percent of officers believe it is unreasonable to expect the U.S. military to wage another major war successfully at present.

Foreign Policy magazine and the Center for a New American Security on Tuesday issued the U.S. Military Index, a survey of 3,400 present and former U.S. military officers.

"We asked the officers whether they thought the U.S. military was stronger or weaker than it was five years ago," said Michael Boyer, who helped write the report.

"Sixty percent said the U.S. military is weaker than it was five years ago," Boyer told reporters."

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/02/19/military.survey.iraq/

I don't think a unilateral military solution is going to work, however. That's where the ability to TALK to other world leaders, even the ones we don't like, would come into play.

I know a guy who might be good for that sort of thing...especially on Dafur.

>>>"Darfur Accountability Act
Co-Sponsored

Darfur Peace and Accountability Act
Co-Sponsored

Civilian Protection
Co-Sponsored

No-Fly Zone
Co-Sponsored

Sudan Divestment Authorization Act
Co-Sponsored

China Resolution
Co-Sponsored"

Barack Obama has received a cumulative grade of “A” for supporting and voting in favor of all significant Darfur legislation. This member of Congress is a champion of the cause and has taken crucial action to end the genocide in Darfur."

http://darfurscores.org/barack-obama

The other guy?

>>>"John McCain has received a cumulative grade of “C” for not actively supporting Darfur-related legislation and failing to consistently champion the cause. Co-sponsoring one or two resolutions or providing a few favorable votes is not enough. Elected officials must continually support efforts to end the genocide in Darfur."

http://darfurscores.org/john-mccain

--Cobra