« Pivotal Tests | Main | And Another One Gone... »

March 23, 2006


I'd respond, but I waiting on Joe Biden's office.

Do you need crediblity to write opinions on a webpage?

That's one of the most awesome defenses of anyone, ever. No wonder trevino is so highly regarded in the blogosphere.

And 4 of the last 5 front page posts [on redstate are] now about this whole thing

Make that 5 of 6, it's now apparently about "decency."

Jokes are an interesting question for plagiarism, because, with the exception of current event jokes, probably 90% are plagiarized.

The Goodwin plagiarism case is mirrored by similar problems with Stephen Ambrose, and harkens back to an earlier case of Alec Haley and Roots. All of these seem to be related to be related to the use of research assistants.

Not sure what Joseph Ellis is doing there, but if you want a mundane Republican example, there is George Deutsch and Michael Brown who quickly come to mind, and have an advantage over Ellis in that they were appointed to government positions.

Martin Luther King, well, if you think he's diminished by plagiarism, you probably think he was a commie as well.

And Mac, nice to see you around, and sorry if I jumped on you there. My own preference for the way to go with false names is the way it went down in this thread (go to the bottom 1/3rd or so where we start discussing Tolstoy and Dostoyevski) but I've been told that I'm overly sensitive.

Do you need crediblity to write opinions on a webpage?

Having been written on a web page, this has reached the Klein bottle stage of argument.

Confession: I did just about the exact same thing over at PW and Jeff banned me. He unbanned immediately after I explained, though. And I did apologize, even though it wasn't required, because staging a joke badly is reason for being contrite.

Not saying anything about you, here, Mac; it's all me.

There is a difference between a youthful indiscretion and a pattern of youthful indiscretions.

Just realized that may be too obscure, my comment should be interpreted as the opposite of a defense.

Although trevino's "you don't need credibility to be an opinion writer" defense still sets the gold standard, I also greatly enjoy all the RedStaters who are proffering the "we've all done far worse than this" defense. Keep pushing that one, friends.

Michelle Malkin isn't happy with Ben. I'm not a fan of some of the attack viciousness that goes on the internet. Some Redstate.com writers seem to be caught up in a "Ben has been subject to lots of unfair attacks before so this must be yet another unfair attack" mindset--hence the focus on the other unfair attacks. But previous unfair attacks don't mean that current ones are unfair. By example attacking Bush for not making the case for an "imminent threat" when he argued against that standard is unfair. Arguing that he didn't follow through with a proper commitment in dealing with a threat on the standard he did use is not an unfair attack.

I thought the racism accusations were over the top, but that's the blogosphere for you.

But, the plagiarism stuff is utterly damning.

If I were a conservative blogger, I'd be starting a campaign to get an honest and worthy social conservative named as a replacement--someone like Patterico or Bainbridge.

"Michelle Malkin isn't happy with Ben." ...SH

I suspect it is over. Proper vetting isn't that hard, I am a little surprised the Post doesn't have anyone with minimal Google skills. What did it take, 48 hours? Big Media obviously does not yet get the internets, poor fellers. They still have contempt for those who do not do their information gathering by phone or doing lunch. Why, anybody who actually knows anything doesn't go online. Only the rabble. They better learn quick.

I also think that the Malkin comments pretty much seals the deal. It's all a matter of how his departure from the WaPo is announced.

Steve -
Just to clarify, that defense comes not from Trevino, but from a commenter named "Neil Stevens" who was commenting on the Trevino post. I have no particular brief to carry for tacitus, but I would be pretty surprised if he bought into this line of defense.

"Machiavel" on decency (oh, there's a good one).

"They attacked the fact that an ex-political appointee would ever be given a job in journalism. Then, they trolled for comments he left on a blog. They attacked his upbringing. They attacked his mother. They attacked his father."

... they even attacked his little dog Checkers.

docj at RedState throws Malkin over the side and bravely soldiers on:

Ah, MIchelle. She forgot that you cannot give-in to terrorists - it's just emboldens them.

The left-blogland is simply no different.

Plus she appears to have jumped to conclusions and is wrong on the facts, again.


So, does Malkin believe there are any people whose political instincts and beliefs differ significantly from hers (or, I guess, Jesse's) that is not a "deranged moonbat" or somesuch iteration? No? Yeah, probably not.

KCinDC - hilarious.

Serious business for Ben. He needs to fully answer the charges. Malkin has weighed in against him.

This is all lovely stuff. By which I mean not lovely, but we swim in rhetorical waters polluted most recently by the punks on the Right at Redstate, some of whom sprinkle enough Latin and "hithertos" in their dense, glutinous prose that I need to follow my cat into the corner and choke up hairballs.

Trevino's most recent front-page post regarding "Midgets" leads off with this intro, probably supplied by the Directors (ominous-sounding, that):

"Back from the diaries, the level of irrational vitriol is worth remembering. These people will stop at nothing to destroy good people"

Yes, I suppose. Vitriol is virus-like and I've developed a raging case of it over the past 18 years or so. It was tough not to, given the airborne aerosal vitriol microbes released into the general atmosphere by the punks recruited by the Republican Party since Gingrich declared war.

But the quote is very sweet as a lead in to a post by a guy (Trevino) who some time ago called former Max Cleland a "martyr" because of the Senator's anger at the tactics used by the Saxby Chambliss campaign (the White House) in, what, 2002?

Cleland has one arm that still works after his injuries in Vietnam. I would have loved it if Trevino had been standing just within grasping distance of Cleland's wheelchair when he called the man a "martyr". I suspect that one arm is very strong and the hand a vise, given all it must do since the paralysis. Throttling a punk, who happened to swallow a thesaurus at a precocious age, by the throat would have a been so right and good.

Trevino uses words like "martyr", "chief", "midget" like normal, patriotic Americans, like me, use the word "c----------". Like the punks in "A Clockwork Orange" they believe some sprightly rendition of "Singing in the Rain"
might mask the damage they've done to our politics, our government, and our country.

Then Machiavel at Redstate follows up with a post about all the awful things being said about Domenech, including, of Liberals, "they called him a homosexual".

Can you imagine? Calling one of the big swinging dicks in the manly Party "homosexual". And a guy with the handle "Machiavel" is scandalized, not to mention martyred. It's a rough game. Which I didn't start. But I want to win, by any means.

It's all O.K. I visit Redstate for my daily shot of testosterone Hutu traitor talk. It gets my heart started in the morning and lets me face the fact that I'm probably going to end fighting a bunch of punks in the streets one day.

I plagiarized myself, once. Didn't even footnote myself.

I've also shamelessly swiped jokes, ideas for jokes and other related things for most of my life. And for what? I'm still just not very funny.

As for Ben, I never read anything of his, so I don't feel all that robbed that maybe it wasn't his after all. If he did half of what he's been accused of, he needs to 'fess up for his own sake. But I really don't care all that much.

Now, if it turns out Neal Stephenson or someone whose work I actually enjoy has been shamelessly slicing entire paragraphs virtually intact from the works of others, well, I'll be crushed for a bit. Then I'll have to read up on those others.

To be clear, I'm not critiquing Ben's work or making any sort of value judgement either way as to its worthiness for display in the MSM, because (as I mentioned at least once) I've never read any of it.

I know as a dismissal, this comment is sorely lacking. Sorry, it's all the outrage I can muster at present.

But I want to win, by any means.

I think this is one of the things that makes you and I different, although not so long ago we had that in common. Call me a man whose moral gyrocompass is still searching for North.

I just fervently hope that North isn't in the same direction as "any means necessary", because that way doesn't look so good to me anymore. If you're into games theory, it's probably just fine, but playing the game to win and playing the game to finish as well as you can while keeping virtue intact, those two don't always agree.

"Malkin has weighed in against him."

O.K., so now I'm on Domenech's side in this.

These guys always have someone more ferocious waiting in the wings to make sure their ferociousness isn't marred by ordinary human frailties like plagiarism.

Watching some of the frothing over at Redstate is truly entertaining, and just a little bit saddening. It's a display of cognitive dissonance and victim complexes that's practically unparallelled. I suppose some of it can be chalked up to the reflexive defense of a friend, but come on: when I find out a friend has done something stupid or crappy, I consider it my solemn duty to tell them so.

I'm kind of sorry about this, in a way. There's going to be some blowback to the credibility of all bloggers, at least as far as establishment media is concerned. I blame Ben for being a plagiarist schmuck, and WaPo for failing to do due diligence on him, to say nothing of thinking they need to hire a GOP party operative to "balance" a professional journalist.

But I can't really be sorry about the Redstate folks who are defending him, who will end up looking real stupid. They've hitched their wagon to BenDom, and watching their heads explode as this plays out is going to be /glorious/.

NotSoBlueStater thinks it's really the Post's fault, though maybe a little bit Domenech's:

I blame the WaPo as much as anybody else. They had to know that Ben would be scrutinized, and yet, as is all too common in journalism these days, they failed to scrutinize for themselves. On that same thought, I have to do a little "shame on Ben" here, too. Clearly, there was a lot at stake here. The fallout from this will be damaging to the conservative movement.

OK, the response I'm 'borrowing' from Biden's office came in, but I can't seem to post it.


It's too long.

"..win, by any means."

Well, not if it involves water sports of any kind. ;)

Catsy, any of them whose heads were susceptible to exploding succumbed years ago. Natural selection has produced a tribe with explosion-proof heads.

"What did it take, 48 hours?"

You need to remember the 60 Minutes fake documents thing. 48 hours on the blogosphere can be hundreds or thousands of man hours of work. I'm not sure that can actually be replicated easily by a single person. Once you know you are looking for plagiarism (and if you know how to do it properly on google) it isn't ridiculously hard. But if you had investigated a bunch of other charges (the intial pass on dKos was more of a throw stuff up and see what sticks variety) and found them baseless you might not try very hard on the plagiarism charge if you haven't already been given a clear example. Once you know it is out there, you look harder.

(This is not a defense of plagiarism at all. This is a defense against the idea that a single editor can be expected to compete with "48 hours" of intense blogosphere scrutiny). The proof is in what you do after stuff comes to light. 60 Minutes pretty much failed on that one, but it was also the first time it had really happened. The charge basically blossomed early yesterday. Give them a until Wednesday or so (the old media grinds slowly) and we can judge how well they reacted. (This will also provide another 48 hours of digging.)

Keep trying with the Biden joke, Mac. It'll get funny eventually, I promise. As an effective distraction, not so much, but hilarity will certainly --if slowly -- ensue.

Just because I've seen Biden comments elsewhere, let me note that if Biden's plagiarism was viewed as relevant to his job performance, his employer could have fired him years ago. Plagiarizing a speech as a politician is bad form, but it doesn't demonstrate a basic failing of a vital requirement for the job as plagiarism does for a writer. Domenech may be a great guy who's nice to animals and a blast to hang out with, but if these allegations are accurate (and I see no way how they could not be, but I'll leave the caveat in), he has no business as a writer for one of the biggest papers in the country.

SH: Just to be correct, I believe you mean the 60 Minutes "alleged fake documents."

Not making a judgement call either way, and although I believe they were probably faked by someone unknown, I have not seen definitive proof that they were. Open to any cite of anything I haven't seen.

Bob, I am no frequent commentator at any site I read. On RS, I had tried to confine myself to factual corrections. But the hypocrisy of their rules, which seem very open, and how they ban people for refusing to bow to the party line, was too much for me to remain silent.

Thanks Phil, I will of course follow your great wisdom. Because when I think humor... "Phil at ObiWi" is always the first thing that pops into mind!

"SH: Just to be correct, I believe you mean the 60 Minutes 'alleged fake documents.'"

No I mean fake documents. You could easily go to prison in any Western country on a circumstantial case with less evidence than was amassed showing that those documents weren't typed in the Vietnam era. You may take that as an indictment of Western standards of judgment if you want.

I'm flattered you think of me at all. Disturbed, but flattered.

Still, wheel it out one more time. I think I heard a chuckle in the back, so everyone's primed now.

You know, I'm tempted to pull over and put a stop to this, but I'm afraid the ensuing exchange of "but he started it" are going to start sounding like my two daughters, and I don't think I could take that right now.

So please, for the sake of my mental hygeine, knock off the snark exchange.

Biden's plagiarism:

Kinnock (original):

Why am I the first Kinnock in a thousand generations to be able to get to university? Why is Glenys the first woman in her family in a thousand generations to be able to get to university?

Was it because our predecessors were thick? Does anybody really think that they didn't get what we had because they didn't have the talent or the strength or the endurance or the commitment? Of course not. It was because there was no platform upon which they could stand.


I started thinking as I was coming over here, why is it that Joe Biden is the first in his family ever to go to a university? Why is it that my wife who is sitting out there in the audience is the first in her family to ever go to college?

Is it because our fathers and mothers were not bright? . . . No, it's not because they weren't as smart. It's not because they didn't work as hard. It's because they didn't have a platform upon which to stand . . .

The link goes on to say:

It turned out Biden had also borrowed passages from old campaign speeches by RFK [...]. But oratory has a long tradition of borrowing and even "heavy lifting," as speechwriters call it, so Biden stayed alive in the presidential race. The last straw, however, came when it turned out that twenty years earlier Biden had received a failing grade in a law school course for plagiarizing a legal article (he'd given a single footnote while lifting five full pages from the article). Biden said he'd been unaware of the appropriate standards for legal briefs, but the public was unimpressed. His campaign collapsed and he withdrew from the race.

I heard him on Fresh Air recently and he sounded ok on this subject. As it happens I'm not that fond of him apart from this and would be happy to see him replaced by someone whose serious character flaw I'm unaware of.

happy to see him replaced by someone whose serious character flaw I'm unaware of

Ignorance really is bliss, then?

"and would be happy to see him replaced by someone whose serious character flaw I'm unaware of."

Now this is interesting. It really depends on the character flaw that I'm unaware of....but of course I can't know.

I mean, by that logic I should be a great deal more well-adjusted...

I dunno hilzoy, I think this all worked out exactly as advertised, and I think RedState.org is playing their role exactly right. Domenech was hired -- everybody has been quite explicit about this -- to provide a view deep inside of what is loosely (and not very accurately IMO) called "Social Conservatism." Now I, and many other ostensible "liberals," think social conservatives are being taken for a ride so we would call it Corporatism or CollegeRepublicanism instead. But if genuine social conservatives like Sebastian are happy then who are we to complain?

Anyway the point is the WaPo didn't want somebody like John Cole. They wanted Ben Domenech, and Krempasky and Harris and whatever posse of nudgers and winkers persuaded Brady that Domenech was what they wanted, justifiably regarded this as quite the coup. Pop open the champagne, fellas, it's divisiveness that gets us elected, and we're about to reap a bumper crop. His party connections, his loose grasp of empiricism and ethics, his comfort with self-contradiction, his instinctual embrace of the IOKIYAR principle, his absolute and uncompromising no-rhetoric-too-outrageous anti-liberalism, anti-abortionism, and anti-taxism... And most of all the fact that he would piss off the "liberals." Those are the things that sealed the contract. And lo and behold, for one brief shining moment, everybody got what they wanted. How does the old curse go? Be careful what you wish for?

BTW about that phrase "brief shining moment?" I have no idea where I first saw that but I am confident that I did not make it up, years ago when I started saying it. Is that plagiarism?

Slart, if you've been limiting your media exposure to people who are reputable, you're missing pretty much the entire national discourse. Guilt-by-association has been the new blackletter law for several years now. And all I can say about the near-zero possibility of Neal Stephenson plagiarizing is that you better not stand between me and anything written that other author ;-)

"No I mean fake documents."

My last impression accords with john miller.

"You could easily go to prison in any Western country on a circumstantial case with less evidence [...]"

A recent example.

To Hilzoy:

You've mixed up the attributions of the quotes from NRO piece with the Cox piece. Don't know if the fault is yours or kos's, but fix it if you want to make this sort of case.

BD's piece should be the one with the nonsensical phrase "literally sucking the life out of the earthlings of the human." Or maybe it would make sense if I'd seen the film.

genuine social conservatives like Sebastian

Apologies for the digression, but... bwah?

Sebastian has many conservative viewpoints, and many fine qualities which we all admire. But as far as being socially conservative, well... the man's gay. Perhaps he leans socially conservative in ways of which I am not aware, but that one niggling trait would seem to make the label of "genuine social conservative" difficult to apply to him.

That's a, uhh, very odd take, Catsy. Are you making a statement about SH's views or about the views of average social conservatives? Very very important difference.

I will not be surprised when we find out he is also being paid by this administration to TRANSCRIBE propaganda for them.

That's a, uhh, very odd take, Catsy. Are you making a statement about SH's views or about the views of average social conservatives? Very very important difference.

I was wondering if someone would misunderstand. I wasn't making any kind of sweeping point, just mentioning that I find the label "social conservative" difficult to apply to anyone who is happily and unashamedly gay, and thus that sentence struck me as completely bizarre. I suppose you could take that as an observation on the nature of what it is to be a socon, a movement which has as one of its core elements a religious hostility to gays and gay rights. I've never considered Sebastian to be one. I have no idea what he considers himself and said so.

I certainly wasn't attempting to make any kind of "you're a traitor to your kind if you're a gay Republican" crack, nor was I questioning his conservative credentials, if that's where this is going.

Catsy: But as far as being socially conservative, well... the man's gay. Perhaps he leans socially conservative in ways of which I am not aware, but that one niggling trait would seem to make the label of "genuine social conservative" difficult to apply to him.

No, not really. You're assuming that all gay men must oppose the social conservative paradigm which ensures they remain second-class citizens. Sebastian Holsclaw's outlook on this, as I believe he has explicitly stated in the past, is a perfectly standard gay social conservative attitude: "I don't feel discriminated against because I'm gay: therefore, I don't care what happens to other GLBT people." (Otherwise expressed as "I don't want equal rights, so I can't see why anyone else should want them.")

Rilkefan, I found calling Sebastian a social conservative jarring as well. What is the definition of "social conservative" being used? Certainly not the one I'm familiar with in modern political discourse. Does Sebastian describe himself as a social conservative?

I'm not going down this road again, Jes.

It was a sentence that struck me as completely bizarre, given what I know of SH. I commented on it. I don't want to turn it into a big production. I'm sorry I said anything at all.

Meanwhile, some of the BenDom lunacy going on over yonder is truly pee-your-pants funny: "Ben should not resign [f]or the same reason that Helen Keller should not have stopped writing."

At Agitprop, we suggest Ben plagiarize this ...

"Sebastian Holsclaw's outlook on this, as I believe he has explicitly stated in the past, is a perfectly standard gay social conservative attitude: 'I don't feel discriminated against because I'm gay: therefore, I don't care what happens to other GLBT people.'"

Umm that isn't my view. I have felt discriminated against. I feel that many of the methods and tactics used by other GLBT people to combat discrimination are counterproductive.

My advice to Ben can be found here

All over. He's resigned

Catsy: It was a sentence that struck me as completely bizarre, given what I know of SH. I commented on it. I don't want to turn it into a big production. I'm sorry I said anything at all.

Fair enough. Me too.

Aaaaand, the fat lady has sung: Domenech resigns. Nothing was said about the blog, however, so I imagine we'll be seeing another "Red America" blogger sooner or later.

"I look forward to the reaction at redstate when Domenech admits his plagiarism."

I'll write it for you: "Good for Ben! His bravery in the face of endless unscrupulous attacks on his character is admirable. He's been called a homosexual, a liar, a thief, and his family has been grossly assaulted. Ben made a regrettable mistake when he was young, and he has now forthrightly apologized for it; let's put it behind us, and may Ben have continued success in his new position at X; I'm sure we'll be seeing great work from him in the future!"

Slart: "Ah, guilt-by-association. I haven't seen anyone reputable use that so casually in a while."

What's this in response to?

Didn't see your comment, Ugh - sorry about the repeat.

"All over. He's resigned."

Oh, darn. I hoped to have at least another hour to polish his resignation speech, and the Redstate reaction.

Heh. It's tempting to go all melodramatic and simply "rest my case" that social conservatism is not a meaningful designation any longer, but yes, I think Sebastian, (pace being gay, which I had actually forgotten at the time of commenting) is more or less a genuine social conservative.

SH, please correct me if you think I'm misrepresenting your views, but it strikes me that you consider traditional moral constraints on legal and governmental proceedings to be legitimate, independent of where those moral constraints, de facto, originate. i.e. that traditional moral constraints, be they from spiritual/religious, social, or philosophical traditions, should take precedence by default over constraints derived from more recent cultural constructs, unless a very high bar is passed.

If this doesn't approximate your views then I apologize, and withdraw the example.

I think we can safely differentiate the WashingtonPost reaction from the 60 Minutes reaction:

"Plagiarism is perhaps the most serious offense that a writer can commit or be accused of. Washingtonpost.com will do everything in its power to verify that its news and opinion content is sourced completely and accurately at all times.

We appreciate the speed and thoroughness with which our readers and media outlets surfaced these allegations. Despite the turn this has taken, we believe this event, among other things, testifies to the positive and powerful role that the Internet can play in the the practice of journalism."

I think it would not be ridiculous to call me a social conservative even if it did not precisely describe all of my views. No label precisely describes anyone's views (except maybe when the label is named after the person--Stalinism???). But if you made a statistical model of 'social conservative' it would probably accurately describe me in most cases. I'm hesitant to go completely off on a tangent (Why suddenly be hesitant now? I don't know). But I suspect the reluctance by some to label me a social conservative suggests a misunderstanding of how severe the average social conservative is. "Social Conservative" describes a range of views (though of course not the entire range of possible views). I suspect that many of the more left-leaning people here think only of the more extreme portion of that range when they think of a social conservative. That happens when looking on the left from the outside too.

KCinDC, I hereby charge that you were wrong, wrong, wrong about their heads not exploding. Within minutes of the resignation, all links at Redstate give me this:

Internal Server Error
The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.

Please contact the server administrator, [email protected] and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error.

More information about this error may be available in the server error log.

Not only did their heads explode, their site did too!

(Couldn't resist.)

Catsy -

funny, cause Charles had just put up a post called "answers needed" stating:

The charges of plagiarism are serious business ... It may be happening at this very writing, but a complete and timely response is needed by the co-founder of this site, answering fully every charge made.

Maybe that's what happens when one editor tries to ban another.

"that" being the site explodes.

Fair enough, SH.

I would note, however, that I don't believe it's so much a matter of viewing a group by their most extreme traits, as by their most vocal and visible. Like it or not, social conservatism's involvement in contemporary politics seems to be intensely concerned with what people--particularly gay people--do in their bedrooms.

I'll let Sebastian define himself.

And I had another piece ready to go when I had to go off to get my theoretically annual haircut, and now i come back and find he's resigned and RedState has gone down.


Very nicely put, Sebastian. I knew there was some reason I don't immediately disregard anything you write...

I don't suppose you'd be interested in writing for wapo.com? I'd sure back you as a candidate. All I ask is that you not call the blog "Red America" (because that's just plain lame).

Sadly, No! puts the capstone on this mess congratulations Hil, you've made the big time.

they are going to take away your license to start a blogswarm if you take an attitude like that...

"Maybe that's what happens when one editor tries to ban another."

It's the ol' "Captain Kirk Technique."

I'm just disappointed in myself for having last night allowed that it might take until Monday for Domenech to resign; old-media thinking on my part.

My bet is that this allows washingtonpost.com a chance at the reset button, and that they will add a "Blue America" blog to the new "Red America" hire when that happens in a couple of weeks, though I'd say the odds are only about 80-20.

Still trying to get back into Redstate to update my post, but I'm getting an "Internal Server Error". I don't know if it's been edited out or not, but I'm fairly sure the post didn't go over well.

BTW, to me this is Redstate's darkest day. Since Ben's name is still on the "masthead", answers are still needed for the benefit of the site.

On another note, I hope WA Post hires another conservative blogger as soon as they are able.

Charles, I managed to briefly get in long enough to read it and the three comments to it. All three were supportive; that surprised me.

I give even money whether it's still there when Redstate comes back up.

Charles -

Are you an editor there cause you're not listed but the post was front paged (and not "promoted from the diaries...").

Update: Some conservatives write in to say that Ben Domenech is not the true face of Right Blogostan. I wish that were so. But sadly, he is its face today.

Are you an editor there cause you're not listed but the post was front paged

I'm an editor with front-page privileges, Ugh. Last month (or was it two months ago?), I asked who I had to kill or screw to get my name up with the rest of the crew, and was told that I would be included after the next site makeover.

Maybe that will be today...

Who gets to speak for "the left," anyway? I'd like to send a memo.

I believe that's

Well, I just made it onto RedState: they headed the frontpage with an apology for the downtime - overload (whatta surprise) - but it looks like the main reaction still remains to go up. Probably still need some more time to sandblast the egg off their faces. My guess is they'll go in for serious wailing-and-gnashing, followed an equally serious flood of blame-shifting - Heh - couldn't happen to a nicer blog.

"I give even money whether it's still there when Redstate comes back up."

Umm, there are competent people over there, I'm sure they realize they get more from their association with CB than v.v.

Atrios gets a bit vicious for me at times, but this is funny.

I still get 'server error' messages. However, I did use a url from my history to get into one of their stories.

Sadly No: heh heh.

"I give even money whether it's still there when Redstate comes back up."

I'd guess it will be; the jig is up. As I said, I'm just sorry we didn't have the weekend for more people to walk out on that limb. Though some will continue to explain how plagiarism is no big thing. Fine, good, go on record with that opinion, guys. Enjoy.

We live in fast times. I just started reading this story and it's already over.

Upthread a ways, someone wrote: As you would say, "lighten up Francis", but if you think it out of line Slart, then I happily apologize.

May I assume that the reference is to the movie "Stripes" and not to me?

It's a beautiful day here in SoCal, and I don't want to get cranky.

It's unclear but I think von may have just been banned at redstate.

(note link may not work due to their server problems).

Dead to rights. Shame on him, and I'm glad for whatever part the left end of the blogosphere played in tripping him up. I don't like people poisoning the information stream no matter what side they're coming from.

All praise to Charles for taking a principled stand at RedState.

One might think that the necessity of doing so would be obvious, but glancing at the comments and posts over there, the obvious is not always obvious to everyone.

And it's always harder to take a stand when your friends are on the other side.

It's unclear but I think von may have just been banned at redstate.

Or, he's been sent Down to the Countryside.

Augustine speaks....

Domenech has the new lead post.

And links to Hilzoy.

Of the O'Rourke piece:

In one instance, I have been accused me of passing off P.J. O'Rourke's writing as my own in a column for the paper. But the truth is that I had met P.J. at a Republican event and asked his permission to do a college-specific version of his classic piece on partying. He granted permission, the piece was cleared with my editors at the paper, and it ran as inspired by O’Rourke’s original.
If so (and I'm going to tentatively assume that someone wouldn't lie about something so verifiable by others), it should have been labeled.

HOW PATHETIC. The man has NO integrity. He's busted and he won't admit he's busted.

I can't wait for his former editors, and P.J. O'Rourke, to go on the record.

Shorter Ben Domenech:

"Whatever I may or may not have done re plagiarizing stuff, it wasn't really my fault, and even if it was, liberals and leftists are still worse, and it's still all their doing anyway - and conservatives still can't get a break in the media"

Feh. Interesting to note, though, that he links to just one blog re the criticism of his appointment: (Hint: its name rhymes with "Obsidian Wings") - mainly due, he graciously notes, to their omission of charges of incestuous activity in the critiques of his plagiarism. Way to go, hilzoy!

Most of the rest of it falls under this:

Virtually every other alleged instance of plagiarism that I’ve seen comes from a single semester’s worth of pieces that were printed under my name at my college paper, The Flat Hat, when I was 17.


But all these specifics are beside the point. Considering that all of this happened almost eight years ago, and that there are no files or notes that I've kept from that brief stint, it is simply my word against the liberal blogosphere on these examples. It becomes a matter of who you believe.

The truth is, a more responsible teenager would've nipped this sort of thing in the bud. A less sloppy writer would have made sure that material copied from other places never made it into a published piece, and never necessitated apologies or explanations that will do nothing to stop the critics. I was wrong not to do so.

We all make mistakes. "Sloppy"? You decide.


Good on you.

I have to hand it to Domenech--he's constructed a web of BS in his new post that is sure to give his supporters the out they need to claim it was all a misunderstanding abetted by those nasty libruls. As BS mea culpas go, it's art. I mean, read over the way he explains away each instance of plagiarism--it's either the fault of unprincipled editors, his own work in two different places, or something for which he had permission. Art, I tell you!

Maybe he has some talent after all.

Self-pity, irrelevancies, contorted explanations for "several" (but not all) incidents, using youth as a defense, and no apology or acceptance of responsibility -- should I really have expected more?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad