Politics
A good rant from P.J. O'Rourke.
Perhaps you're having a tiny last minute qualm about voting Republican. Take heart. And take the House and the Senate. Yes, there are a few flakes of dander in the fair tresses of the GOP's crowning glory--an isolated isolationist or two, a hint of gold buggery, and Christine O'Donnell announcing that she's not a witch. (I ask you, has Hillary Clinton ever cleared this up?) Fret not over Republican peccadilloes such as the Tea Party finding the single, solitary person in Nevada who couldn't poll ten to one against Harry Reid. Better to have a few cockeyed mutts running the dog pound than Michael Vick.
I take it back. Using the metaphor of Michael Vick for the Democratic party leadership implies they are people with a capacity for moral redemption who want to call good plays on the legislative gridiron. They aren't. They don't. The reason is simple. They hate our guts.
They don't just hate our Republican, conservative, libertarian, strict constructionist, family values guts. They hate everybody's guts. And they hate everybody who has any. Democrats hate men, women, blacks, whites, Hispanics, gays, straights, the rich, the poor, and the middle class.
Democrats hate Democrats most of all. Witness the policies that Democrats have inflicted on their core constituencies, resulting in vile schools, lawless slums, economic stagnation, and social immobility. Democrats will do anything to make sure that Democratic voters stay helpless and hopeless enough to vote for Democrats. . . .
Brodsky: An endless string of broken promises Gardiner on Krugman's piece: Not only is Krugman’s article one of the most ridiculous pieces of scare-mongering in the history of modern American journalism, but it is the pathetic whimper of a decay Read More
You stopped too soon. The best lines in the article were:
THIS IS NOT AN ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 2. THIS IS A RESTRAINING ORDER. Power has been trapped, abused and exploited by Democrats. Go to the ballot box and put an end to this abusive relationship. And let’s not hear any nonsense about letting the Democrats off if they promise to get counseling.
Now THAT's inspired. "Restraining order," I like that.
Well played.
You stopped too late, and dind't mix in your own commentary, so you don't have an adequate 17 USC 107 fair use defense. You took too much and it is a clear violation of the 17 USC 106 Copyright, mentioned at the bottom of the page. "2010 Weekly Standard LLC."
I mean, you probably know folks who know folks who work at the weekly standard, so there is no real likelyhood of a suit. Also actual dammages would never cover legal fees.
I just think the idea of bringing copyright infringement suits against folks borrowing from P.J. O'Rourke is hillarious.
I might think that if folks are having last minute qualms about voting republican it is the sense that Gonzo journalism has taken over.
No one really likes the idea of being ying-yanged from one sensationalism to the other. At some point you want accuracy over style.
On the other hand we don't get accuracy or facts, because accuracy and facts are not copyrightable. Style, Cleverness, sensationalism and the apt metaphor are copyrightable.
Also just to be clever I think a student should defend himself from plagerism charges, by showing that his proffesor violated copyright.
Plagerism after all is the academic version designed to make sure that attribution is given to the right sources. Yada yada yada. But outside the ivory tower, and perhaps journalism, a typical person is subject not to plagerism(the dean has no jurisidiction) but rather to copyright.
On the other hand more people are aware of plagerism standards than copyright standards and often conflate the two especially when copying large chunks, with attribution.
Attribution simply makes the case for copyright infringement stronger, since if you give enough tea partiers(monkeys) a keyboard they might be able to independently come up with such a rant verbatim.
Also short sentences individually are not copyrightable, but they can be trademarked.(it is ridiculous that I could find caselaw to support this sentence). In fact I am probably plagerizing this whole post. Immagine if I couldn't say: "yes we can", without giving credit to Obama!
It turns out that Obama couldn't say "Yes we Can"! Because it was the trademarked slogan for the National Center for Home Food Preservation and Canning. I am not making this stuff up, or considering the implications maybe I am.
And somewhere there is a jackass who is going to quote O'Rourke for "They Aren't." Perhaps even a TA who will find plagerism in the paraphrase "They are not."
I digress, but just for the record, not only are you violating the weekly standard copyright, but "fight the hate" is also trademarked.
Also in case you decide to say: "I take it back."(without attributing O'Rourke), you would also be in violation of a trademark owned by a Missouri Co. that itself is a knock-off of play-it-again-sports.(trademarked of course)
https://abovethelaw.com/2010/06/misadventures-in-trademark-law-faegre-benson-helps-pigs-fight-unicorns/
To be fair I think faegre-benson was just writting the cease and desist letter to make the april fools joke funnier.