The New York Times is, of course, a strong supporter of HRC. It is not surprising that they produced this video. It is easy to be cynical about the NYT, that defender of the Establishment (Clinton) par excellence.
It is often said that the Trump phenomenon taps into the citizenry’s disgust with politics as usual, and I’m sure that’s right; and it is difficult for thinking people not to share a disgust with our kind of system.
But one need not wed disgust over "politics as usual" with racism, scape-goating, the repeating of lies, and the coarse and reprehensible positions, attitudes, and tactics embraced by Trump and his pathetic (or opportunistic) supporters.
Be disgusted, but don't be Trump disgusted. Be Bernie disgusted.
Disgust is right and good. But Trumpism is disgust for stupid people, Glenn.
For an instance of intelligent “disgust”: Susan Sarandon Slams "Disgusting" DNC Crusade Against Bernie
21 comments:
I find this blog recently cluttered with nonsensical issues of national politics, something Roy has said many times, is not its intended purpose. Rather than countless, misleading political hit pieces, i.e. Malania Trump's alleged plagiarism, and "my candidate's better than your candidate" arguments, why not finally get back to district, college and local issues?
Did you notice the last word of this post? It refers to the President of Irvine Valley College, who is, unless I am very much mistaken, a Trump supporter (there are numerous indications).
This is summer. Not much happens in summer, beyond board meetings. Hence the temporary focus on the big issue of the moment: who should be the President? I am aware that my colleagues share my interest in this current campaign.
And if you don't like DtB, why the hell do you read it?
Just go away.
11:58, you say that this blog is cluttered with “nonsensical issues in national politics.”
The issue that we have recently emphasized is the race for the Presidency. Is that a “nonsensical issue” to you?
Perhaps you mean such issues as whether progressives should support Hillary Clinton. Yes, I’ve emphasized that issue.
How is it “nonsensical,” my friend? I know many faculty, and I know that most of them are interested in precisely that issue, since most of them are progressives. Indeed, one could argue that this very issue is “the” issue of the moment (or it was until very recently), for progressives.
Hit pieces? I have cited articles and videos on both sides of the “supporting Clinton” issue as well as articles and videos concerning Mr. Trump. Why label these “hit” pieces?
I have posted a series of links of interest, sometimes with excerpts. In what sense are any of these “hit pieces”? They often take a position—e.g., an anti-Trump position. Is it your view that any article that takes a position, no matter how well argued, is a “hit piece”? That would be an incompetent view. (It would mean, e.g., that every article in, say, the National Review or The Nation is a “hit” piece. Absurd.)
Objectivity does not imply neutrality—that’s a critical thinking truism.
We certainly have not emphasized “Malania” [sic] Trump’s plagiarism (it isn’t merely alleged, by the way; that she plagiarized is a demonstrable fact). Plagiarism is a major issue among academics. Why wouldn’t a college blog mention this curious event?
It’s true that, among commenters, some very poor argumentation has been presented. As I have explained often, as a matter of policy, we try not to edit or delete comments. I can’t control their quality of our commenters’ comments.
Face it, you don’t like my recent posts because they are largely directed at progressives, and you are not a progressive.
May I suggest that DtB isn’t the right kind of blog for you?
Thank you.
Now go away.
On your plagiarism thread someone posted a link to the president committing blatent, intentional plagiaism, far worse than Mrs. Trump's alleged infraction, AND the president is an acedemic who should know better. Why do you not devote a whole thread to that fact?
2:55, as you can imagine, like most folks, I'm busy and I judged it not worth looking at.
But I'll look at it and get back to you.
2:55, the video in question compares the following remarks:
I am not asking anybody to take a chance on me; I am asking you to take a chance on your own aspirations. (Deval Patrick, 6/3/06)
I’m not just asking you to take a chance on me; I’m also asking you to take a chance on your own aspirations. (BO, 11/2/07)
This is plainly an instance of plagiarism by Obama. One article that discussed this plagiarism explains that “Patrick … encouraged [Obama] to use the phrases, Obama said at the time, while claiming to regret not citing his source.”
If that is true, it is mitigating, I think. Still, he committed plagiarism, no doubt.
If memory serves, plagiarism scandals, large and small, crop up often among politicians. For instance, I recall that the Vice President was once caught plagiarizing.
Cases differ, of course. It is one thing to borrow a few phrases from a friend making remarks in the same arena, more or less; it is quite another thing to plagiarize an entire speech, which Mrs. Trump seems to have done.
I don’t think anybody thinks that Melania’s plagiarism, albeit embarrassing, was a big deal. Given her inexperience, in itself, it was nothing. The more significant issue was that her handlers didn’t catch it. It was yet another indication that Trump isn't running a professional organization.
It is odd that someone like Obama would ever plagiarize, since he is among the best speech writers and orators the Presidency has ever produced (illustrated, e.g., during his first Presidential campaign, when he wrote and gave his famous speech about race).
But, yes, he plagiarized.
Everybody plagiarizes in some sense or other. There are different interpretations abut the venality of such a thing. Shakespeare plagiarized from write histories. Mozart plagiarized from Bach. Whenever we use a clever quote we're plagiarizing. So, then, what's the fucking point?
In academia—and this is a college blog—plagiarism is a major and conspicuous sin. That is because academics (at least at the university level) are expected to contribute to discourse in their field by doing real, and thus honest, research. Showing up with someone else's ideas and claiming them for oneself is contrary to the whole project.
It is less of a sin in many other circles, and that is somewhat understandable. Further, practices change from era to era. It would be silly to condemn Mozart for a rampant and accepted practice in his time and place.
In our time and place (academia today), plagiarism is still a major sin, and plagiarists rightly pay a heavy price. Politicians aren't usually seen as innovators of ideas; they are seen essentially as leaders, people who can get things done in an organization.
ML King plagiarized part of his dissertation. Not good. But, when all is taken into account (his life, his accomplishments, his legacy), it would be churlish to harp on the matter. Again, he sure could write a great speech, and he often did so.
That Obama once borrowed phrases (i.e., rhetoric) from his friend doesn't strike me as a big deal, all things considered. If he had done that sort of thing repeatedly during his political career—that would be a different matter.
Again, Melania's plagiarism, taken in itself, is of no great moment. She made a mistake is all.
Obama's error is more serious, though it isn't egregious. A stupid and embarrassing mistake, but of no consequence.
4:27 — so "everybody plagiarizes"?
No, plainly some do not.
They're called honest people.
When one uses a "clever quote," one cites the source. One gives credit to the originator. Hence one does not plagiarize.
What's the matter with you?
Some commenters on this blog are very crude. Maybe they're Trump folks.
In a nutshell Roy is saying that the academic community gets to decide what is and is not plagiarism and they also have the descretion to bend the rules as they see fit. If you've got academic clout you can get away with it all day long, what Roy considers "mitigating circumstances." If you are a conservative minded student of a liberal minded professor, well then, the professor has the power to punish you for plagiarism while letting the liberal minded students slide. Being a liberal College professor today must be a real power trip.
Another thing that diminishes the legitimacy of higher education is the granting of honorary degrees. Just because someone happens to be successful in business or finance they are simply awarded one... Case in point is the cozy relationship record producer David Geffin has enjoyed with UCLA. Even though he lied about having a degree from UCLA for many years, it was all "fixed" after he donated multimillions, bulidings were named in his honor, he was appointed by Gov. Brown to their board of regents and granted an honorary degree. Seems like the ends always justify the means.
How are the politicians and big money in politics any diferent?
So, 5:40, everything you say is an original pearl of wisdom? And every time you use a thought/idea/concept that is the result of another's verbiage you provide a special documented appreciation?
Thought not, you self important narcissist.
6:42, No, I did not say, nor do I suppose that “the academic community gets to decide what is and is not plagiarism.” On the contrary, I said that the gravity of the sin of plagiarism depends on the endeavor in question. It is one thing to join a community of scholars in which individuals are expected to provide significant and original contributions to their discipline; it is quite another to be a rock star writing songs for his or her band; and it is still quite another to be a politician making speeches. I never suggested that academics should or do make judgments about plagiarism outside of academia. What's the matter with you?
I know and have known lots of college professors, and I assure you that, without exception, these people embrace values according to which judging and treating students differently on the basis of their political views is a terrible kind of unprofessionalism. They would be mortified were they accused of such a thing
I’ll tell you about my own teaching. I routinely tell my students that I don’t care what positions they hold; I care only about the quality of the reasons they give in support of them (avoidance of fallacies; strength of support; etc.).
And I have no doubt that many college instructors make similar pronouncements all the time.
You've been listening to Rush too long, my friend.
Re honorary degrees: do you imagine that anyone takes these things seriously? And do you suppose that faculty originate such honors?
My friend, you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. I suggest that you shut the fuck up and go away.
7:08—Mr Anonymous. If you want to attack me, sign your name. But of course you won't. You're a sniveling coward.
If you are suggesting that I somehow plagiarize, then SHOW US. There are thousands of pages of DtB. Find ONE INSTANCE of my using "a thought/idea/concept that is the result of another's verbiage." Whatever that is supposed to mean.
But of course you won't. You won't even try. That's because you are an intellectual featherweight. An idjit.
And a coward.
Has the President of IVC publicly stated that he prefers one candidate?
I thought it was against Board policy.
Is this a hunch?
According to Roy 6:42 should just "shut the fuck up and go away." Wonderful.
Roy, that's the problem with so-called progressivism. Besides the intloerence of differing viewpoints, rules and laws get applied differently and unequally based on ideology (see BO's shameful IRS scandal), political class (Hillary's crimes and coverup), race (2008 voter intimidation and harassment case), academics (college admissions race quotas), etc... Even at the constitutional level (BO's refusal to enforce our immigration laws already on the books), etc, etc, etc... It all boils down to a new era of Social Justice, which in my opinion is completely incompatible with our constitution and economic system.
Another ridiculous one is the studies on income inequality. I know this is Hillary's big one. The fact of the matter is that there is no place in our capitalist system for these kinds of studies, so they are being fallaciously applied as if legitimate. The only place such studies can be legitimatly applied is in communist societies, ya know, like in the Havana hospital where the janitor makes the same salary as the cardiologist. I digress...
To me there is no end to the ridiculousness of Progressivism and their Social Justice movement, IMHO.
The solution to income inequality: Entry level jobs were never meant to be careers, so if a person feels they're not earning enough income, they go to college and say, learn English and other functional skills so they can get higher paying jobs with career opportunities. That's how it really works in America.
Wow, there are some seriously ignorant people writing comments on this blog. Don't you have any progressives at your colleges?
Nope, just opinionated, self indulgent, egotistical, wanna-be know it alls disguised as professors.
And Roy, no, you fuck off and just shut up, delusional moron.
Golly
Gee, what a strange concept,
"The solution to income inequality: Entry level jobs were never meant to be careers, so if a person feels they're not earning enough income, they go to college and say, learn English and other functional skills so they can get higher paying jobs with career opportunities. That's how it really works in America." (12:55)
Well, that guy really told you off there, Roy. Eloquently, too, wouldn't you say?
Post a Comment