Two Words does not Plagiarism Make

I continue to be amazed at the bizarre and absurd twists and turns that the Clinton presidential campaign takes. The latest involves an accusation of plagiarism against Barack Obama. Apparently, one refrain from a recent Obama speech in Wisconsin closely resembles that of a speech made by Obama supporter Deval Patrick several years ago.

Let’s look at this case of “plagiarism”. Much like Obama, Patrick was attacked for being an empty suit spouting rhetoric without substance (i.e. just words, nothing more). His response was to cite several profound historic quotes (e.g. “we have nothing to fear but fear itself”) followed by the phrase “just words!” In Wisconsin this past weekend, Obama used the same approach. He chose an historic quote or two different from Patrick, but he ended each quote with the phrase “just words!”

So, let me get this straight. Repeating the same TWO WORDS in the refrain of a speech that someone else used, now qualifies as plagiarism? If we’re gonna count “stolen words”, surely Hillary saying she is “fired up and ready to go” (six words lifted right from Obama) smacks much more of plagiarism than Obama’s supposed offense.

But more to the point, if Obama is guilty of anything, he is guilty of using Patrick’s rhetorical construct to make his point. But loads of orators borrow constructs from other orators. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke in the rhythmic patterns of many preachers before him. Did that make him a plagiarist? A good motivational speech employs rhythm, imagery, repetition of certain phrases and a certain vocal tone. Every great speaker from FDR, to the Kennedys, to King, to Obama employs these methods.

One would have hoped that after Hillary “accused” Obama of being an ambitious kindergartner back in the day (yes, she actually did that), that she would have abandoned the lightweight foolish diversions and focused on the substantive issues Americans face today.

The fact is, Hillary’s accusation of plagiarism against Barack is “just words”, signifying absolutely nothing.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

Sorry, but some Americans Ain’t Very Bright

A recent poll revealed that 8% of those polled believed that Barack Obama is a practicing Muslim. Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s Hardball suggested that Barack should be concerned about this.

Ehhh, no. Barack should ignore this poll and not even address it. You know why? Because at least 8% of Americans are just plain stupid. I’m often amused by many of the poll results that the media shares with us because no one ever says, “there is a margin of error to this poll because at least x% of those polled don’t have the foggiest idea what they are talking about.” How many times do you think the average American gets polled and says to the inquisitor “sorry, I can’t participate in this poll because I really don’t know the issues.” On the contrary, everyone, no matter how ignorant, loves to have an opinion. I guess that is part of the beauty of the United States of America that everyone gets to speak his mind even when he doesn’t have one.

So I implore you. The next time you hear the results of any poll, please make an arithmetic adjustment in your head for “the stupid factor.” It’ll give you a better idea of what is really going on.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

Religious Tolerance Gone Berserk

One of the recent headlines that has gotten much attention is that of the British school teacher in Sudan who allowed her class to name a teddy bear Muhammed. She was arrested and there were demonstrations calling for her death. Does religious tolerance call for us to “understand” this kind of total lunacy? The religiously skeptical among us consider many of the doctrines of ALL the religions to be awfully hard to swallow but there is no doubt that organized religion brings great comfort to many of its believers.

So I propose the following solution. I suggest that appointed representatives from all the world’s religions have a summit perhaps hosted in the United States, in which religious tolerance is a longstanding tradition. The purpose of this summit would be construction of a Theocratic Bill of Human Rights whereby all of these religious leaders would discuss in detail their individual doctrines and publicly pledge to not allow the “rules” of any religion to violate the human rights of any human being. In the case of the Sudanese elementary school teacher, common sense prevailed and she was released but wouldn’t it be a bold step for the religions of the world to come together and agree that we don’t kill people (or give them 40 lashes) for naming a teddy bear Muhammed? We don’t issue a fatwa on an author for freely expressing his views in a fictional book (i.e. Salman Rushdie). We don’t teach impressionable youngsters that if they fly planes into buildings, they will be greeted with ready and willing virgins in the hereafter.

Religious tolerance is the admirable and decent road to take for a civilized society but that tolerance must hit a limit when the religion itself calls for uncivilized behavior.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

Ground Zero Sacred?

Let me start by saying that back in 2001, as I watched survivor stories of the World Trade Center, I cried like a baby. So I fully grasp the degree to which 9-11 was a national tragedy.

But in 2007, it’s time to get real. There are all sorts of reasons to react emotionally to the visit of Mahmud Ahmadinejad, but to say that he should not lay a wreath at Ground Zero because it is sacred ground is a bit much. A sacred site should have a memorial built on it and certainly not be considered for commercial use. Ground Zero is now a construction site for a building that will one day house lots of Wall Street boys and girls making big money. If you want an example of how to treat sacred ground, look at Hiroshima. Hiroshima has a memorial to promote the theme of peace. The Japanese have treated their Ground Zero as sacred ground.

Our answer to President Ahmadinejad should simply have been that no one, regardless of political background, gets to lay wreaths at construction sites. Sanctity has very little to do with it.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

The Jena Six – How does the discussion get past go?

I’ve watched a decent bit of coverage lately on the Jena Six and what astounds me is how casually the newscasters set up the story by telling us that someone was sitting under a “whites only” tree and then they elaborate on the latest update.

Excuse me? For me the story ENDS at the mention of the “whites only” tree. What kind of foolishness is that in 2007 America? The events that followed are not the news here. They are the consequences of the news. The news here is that in 2007, we still have communities who believe they can label a TREE for white people. The news here is that some 40 years after the heyday of the civil rights movement, there are pockets of society where such blatant (and stupid) racism is still tolerated.

Forget the inequities behind how whites and blacks were treated in the aftermath of this “tree incident”. Let’s get back to the root of the issue! Trees exist for anyone to sit under if they want to. There are no whites-only trees!

Respectfully,
Rutherford