O’Rourke Denies Phony Domenech Explanation
Ouch. Ben Domenech repeated his phony-baloney story about P.J. O’Rourke (debunked on this blog last night, here) to the New York Times. And O’Rourke himself has predictably denied it:
Contacted at his home in New Hampshire, Mr. O’Rourke said that he had never heard of Mr. Domenech and did not recall meeting him.
“I wouldn’t want to swear in a court of law that I never met the guy, Mr. O’Rourke said of Mr. Domenech, “but I didn’t give him permission to use my words under his byline, no.”
Isn’t that fairly obvious? Shouldn’t Mr. Domenech have realized that O’Rourke would deny his story?
All in all, a pathetic episode.
I wonder if the LA times will print O’rourke’s denial.
actus (6234ee) — 3/25/2006 @ 1:02 pmGood question!
Patterico (de0616) — 3/25/2006 @ 1:05 pmThough I don’t really think a failure to do so would leave people with the false impression that maybe O’Rourke really did authorize the plagiarism.
Still, I’d like to see a follow-up story with Domenech’s apology and O’Rourke’s denial, both.
Patterico (de0616) — 3/25/2006 @ 1:07 pm“Still, Id like to see a follow-up story with Domenechs apology and ORourkes denial, both. ”
I hope they print this part of Ben’s apology:
Everybody needs to know what this guy was about. What the Post was putting on its website.
[That wasn’t part of his apology. That was part of his earlier post o’ excuses. — Patterico]
actus (6234ee) — 3/25/2006 @ 2:02 pmIt wouldn’t matter even if Ben Domenich had been legitimatley under the impression that P.J. O’Rourke gave him permission to plagiarzie his material — which he wasn’t, no surprise there.
If O’Rourke had given him permission to burn down his house would that make arson legal?
There’s no excuse for such a dishonest young twit, any more than there was for a dishonest old twit like Michael Fumento. I have no patience with tribal loyalty on either side of the political spectrum.
Any maybe the Washingto Post should think twice about who they hire for these spots, especially when it comes to 24-year-olds.
Cathy Seipp (d8da01) — 3/25/2006 @ 2:04 pmI don’t think these situations are at all comparable, Cathy. Fumento didn’t steal anything.
See Dubya (f2a87c) — 3/25/2006 @ 2:17 pmCompletely tangential yet irresistible legal question for Patterico: if O’Rourke gave Domenech permission to burn his house down, it wouldn’t constitute arson, would it? No malice.
Aside from that, I agree with Cathy.
Allah (4ba106) — 3/25/2006 @ 2:44 pm“Malice” for arson has a specific and nonintuitive meaning — specifically, a “deliberate and intentional firing of a building,” as opposed to an accident.
Patterico (de0616) — 3/25/2006 @ 3:04 pmIf O’Rourke burned his own house down, it would be arson. If he lives in New York, anyways.
A more analagous situation would be Gentle Ben taking O’Rourke’s ID, with his permission, and using it to get into a bar.
Geek, Esq. (9405d1) — 3/25/2006 @ 3:16 pmFrom the link:
How is it arson, then, if you have the landowner’s permission?
I apologize for the threadjacking.
Allah (4ba106) — 3/25/2006 @ 3:27 pmCase law.
Patterico (de0616) — 3/25/2006 @ 3:32 pmJudicial tyranny!
Allah (4ba106) — 3/25/2006 @ 3:35 pmSure. Here I want to burn my own house down, and some damn judge is telling me I can’t. It’s an outrage, I tells ya.
Getting back on topic, even if O’Rourke had authorized a take-off on his piece, he certainly never would have contemplated someone lifting it almost word-for-word, as I demonstrated here last night, with no attribution whatsoever.
Patterico (de0616) — 3/25/2006 @ 3:41 pmActually, I misspoke. PJ O’Rourke can burn his own house down in New York–as long as it’s not insured and no one’s in the building.
I knew that when I took the bar–really.
Geek, Esq. (9405d1) — 3/25/2006 @ 3:52 pmThere you have it. Everyone who wants to burn down his own house can move to New York and burn, baby, burn. Those of us in California are sadly lacking in such basic freedoms.
Now, about Ben Domenech?
Patterico (de0616) — 3/25/2006 @ 3:55 pmDomenech, right. Are you following the comments at RedState? Apparently, (a) he did nothing wrong; (b) he’s already forgiven, despite having tried to blame other people after he was caught; (c) it’s all liberals’ fault anyway.
Allah (4ba106) — 3/25/2006 @ 4:40 pmPathetic.
Patterico (de0616) — 3/25/2006 @ 4:42 pmAs a believer in legalized marijuana, opponent of the death penalty, supporter of abortion rights, hater of John Ashcroft, opponent of PATRIOT, and supporter of the War In Iraq, I’ve found that I’m far too right wing for the left blogosphere. I’ve found that I’m actually one of those people responsible for Bush gaining power in the first place.
This week I figured that I would check to see if, maybe, I was getting more conservative in my dotage. I got a login to Redstate.
I suspect that I picked a bad week to see if the Redstaters could convince me that maybe Republicanism was for me.
Jaybird (d23d8f) — 3/25/2006 @ 5:14 pmI think that’s a bit unfair to Republicans as a whole. They’re obviously very partisan at RedState, but that’s not true of all Republicans. Give us a chance.
Patterico (de0616) — 3/25/2006 @ 5:45 pmAllah–
See-Dubya (921613) — 3/25/2006 @ 6:27 pmYou mean you agree with Cathy about Domenech, or you disagee with me–i.e. you agree with Cathy that Fumento is equally inexcusable?
I agree with her about Domenech. I didn’t follow the Fumento thing.
Allah (4ba106) — 3/25/2006 @ 6:29 pmWell, the O’Rourke thing is wrong, and dumb, but I don’t think the guy should get fired now for high school plagiarism. It’s the stuff since then that’s the problem, especially the recent NRO stuff.
Fumento’s a tougher case; I’m satisfied with his explanation.
See-Dubya (921613) — 3/25/2006 @ 6:57 pmYo, Jaybird! A tip for you. Go to Glenn Greenwald’s Unclaimed Territory and check out his long, thoughtful post on how this Domenech affair is completely illustrative of Republicanism as we know it today. Sample (Glenn’s words, NOT mine):
“It is a base, tribal mentality where group allegiance cleanses any and all wrongdoing and immunizes the individual from any accusations of wrongdoing. We have seen this play out over and over with every Bush scandal, where no conduct is too extreme and too facially wrong to be beyond their willingness to defend it away and justify it. If you support George Bush, you can do anything — including stealing, like Domenech did repeatedly and extensively — and still be defended, because your allegiance to the Leader means that anything you do is good, right and justifiable. That is the mentality that has been governing our country for five years now, and it is vividly apparent with this tawdry debacle.”
Asinistra (ffa071) — 3/25/2006 @ 9:12 pmWhich explains why Patterico, Cathy Seipp, See-Dubya, Michelle Malkin, and I, among many others, are pounding Domenech for being a thief and a liar. Sensational display of irony on your part, Asinistra, posting that here. Magnificent, really.
By the way, I don’t read Greenwald so I have to ask: is he always that pompous when sketching his caricatures? Good christ. And you people have the nerve to complain about Goldstein.
Allah (4ba106) — 3/25/2006 @ 9:22 pmAsinistra,
Ditto what Allah said. Why make that point *here*, of all places?
By the way, I am not defending Domenech, whom I have written off as scum, but I do have a little hypo for you anyway: do you think that someone should be disqualified from being a journalist because of years-old transgressions? If so, what transgressions qualify? Plagiarism? Theft? Hacking into colleagues’ e-mail?
I’d love an answer to this specific question: if someone hacked into their colleagues’ e-mail at a newspaper 13 years ago, would you say that person should no longer be a journalist at that paper?
Is there no statute of limitations on such transgressions?
Just curious. I’m honestly quite interested in your reply — particularly on the e-mail hacking question.
Again, I am not defending Domenech here. The more I learn the more I am disgusted.
Patterico (de0616) — 3/25/2006 @ 10:03 pmI probably shouldn’t be continuing to argue about this here, but…
Why the confusion (from lawyers!) about my arson metaphor? If O’Rourke gave Domenech permission to burn his house down…and we can assume that, like most homes, it was insured…then, yes, of course it’s still arson. Mostly because it’s fraud (which is the essence of Domenech’s journalistic crime) but incidentally also because it endangers neighbors and firemen.
I would trust Domenech more than Fumento at this point because he has apologized. Fumento still actually thinks he did nothing wrong. Also, Domenech is younger, and therefore I’ll cut him a little slack for stupidity, but not enough to ever think he should work again as a journalist.
Hacking into colleagues’ email is a stupid and unprofessional infraction against one’s colleagues and employer but not a crime against journalism. In fact, in its excessive nosiness, it’s probably a hallmark of a good journalist. Seems to me the punishment LA Times staffer Michael Hiltzek suffered from that — removal from a plum foreign bureau assignment to the business section, but not firing — was about right.
Cathy Seipp (bea852) — 3/25/2006 @ 11:38 pmOn arson in response to Ms. Seipp:
Perhaps I shouldn’t opine on this since I have been a mere observer and not a participant up to this point in the discussion. However, I believe that your arson analogy was understood, but it triggered what I would call a law blog swarm on the legal intricacies of arson in various jurisdictions. In other words, these lawyer-types went off on an intellectual arson tangent.
DRJ (3c8cd6) — 3/26/2006 @ 12:18 amSeems to me like a SOL for bad journalistic behavior would be within the last 5-10 yrs. Plus, it would be based on how MUCH or how BADLY one plagiarized. By that I mean, was it lifted whole cloth from someone else’s work or was it more of a paraphrase? Is it obvious from the plagiarizing piece that the author thought he wouldn’t get caught, or is it a situation where someone had a similar thought to another and just lifted some of it? This is no excuse in the journalistic world, btw, but it does seem like there needs to be a SOL on it, given that there is soooo much info out there & it is totally available these days.
As for the malarky about Redstate specifically and conservatives in general, I find it interesting that the same people who defended Clinton’s philandering are snarking that enough conservatives don’t dump Bush over the rail. Maybe the reason more conservatives don’t rag on Bush is that liberals are so ridiculous with every new accusation of wrongdoing by the Bush administration. First it was “he stole the election.” Then it’s “he ruined the economy.” Then it’s “he didn’t do enough to prevent 9/11.” Then it’s “he CAUSED 9/11.” Then it’s “blood for oil.” Then it’s “Bush is stupid.” Then it’s “Bush is so smart he WANTS liberals to think he’s stupid.” Then it’s “Karl Rove is pulling the strings.” And that’s just the first 2 years. I could go on. Do you see WHY every new accusation is met with an eyeroll?
sharon (fecb65) — 3/26/2006 @ 5:10 amDRJ — Exactly. My question to Patterico about arson wasn’t a comment on Domenech, just a wonky legal hypothetical: can a person be charged with arson if the homeowner consents to the act? (Forget about third-party interests like insurance companies for these purposes.) The obvious answer is, “Who the hell would ever consent to someone burning down their home? That would never happen in the real world.” To which I say, welcome to law school.
Anyway, I think Geek, Esq. knew where I was going with it. As a New Yorker, I take comfort in the knowledge that I can torch my own uninsured home without fear of prosecution.
As for Cathy’s point that hacking into a co-worker’s account isn’t a firing offense, I disagree. Might not be a crime against journalism, but it is — or should be — a crime. Isn’t it, Counselor Frey?
Allah (4ba106) — 3/26/2006 @ 8:17 amAsinistra???
Helloooooo???
Patterico (de0616) — 3/26/2006 @ 11:49 amAs for Cathy’s point that hacking into a co-worker’s account isn’t a firing offense, I disagree. Might not be a crime against journalism, but it is — or should be — a crime. Isn’t it, Counselor Frey?
I’m not an expert on that, but you might take a look at this statute. I offer no opinion on its applicability, if any — read it and decide for yourself.
Patterico (de0616) — 3/26/2006 @ 11:54 amLooks like he skates via subsection (h)(2) (and (b)(8)). So you can hack into a colleague’s e-mail account and read their private messages, you just can’t change any of the data.
Groovy.
Allah (4ba106) — 3/26/2006 @ 12:13 pmHold the phone — (h)(2) only exempts you from (c)(3), not (c)(2).
Interesting.
Allah (4ba106) — 3/26/2006 @ 12:15 pmBut that applies only to (c)(3). What about (c)(7)?
Patterico (de0616) — 3/26/2006 @ 12:16 pmAh, but see (i). That addresses (c)(2) and (c)(7).
Patterico (de0616) — 3/26/2006 @ 12:23 pmBut it’s gotta be “incidental.”
Patterico (de0616) — 3/26/2006 @ 12:25 pmCathy Seipp:
With all due respect, Cathy, you are the dishonest twit in this saga, not Fumento. Fumento has some rough edges, but there’s no evidence he acted dishonestly here, and ample evidence that YOU acted either dishonestly, or with reckless disregard of the truth.
Xrlq (413265) — 3/26/2006 @ 1:41 pmI’m dishonest why? Because in that piece you link to Fumento got several things wrong about me and never corrected them? The worst was:
“Seipp’s attack on me is all the more stunning in that she herself, in her attack piece, claimed she was falsely accused by New York Times writer Sharon Waxman of taking pay-for-play. Did it not occur to her that if she were falsely accused, others might be too?”
Since I was never accused (falsely or otherwise) by Waxman of anything, I never wrote that I was, as Fumento knows perfectly well. He has trouble interpreting basic facts and doesn’t correct his mistakes, so I don’t trust him — and not only because he solicited payment from Monsanto for that biotech book. I don’t care if he is on the right side politically.
Cathy Seipp (d8da01) — 3/26/2006 @ 4:24 pmI’m not interested in debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, the semantic niceties of the word accuse, or whether Waxman’s clearly accusatory (by your own account) questions do or do not technically rise to the level of a formal accusation. Compared to your blatantly false accusations against him, that distinction is on the order of mice-nuts. At worst, it suggests Fumento could have chosen his words a little more precisely. This is nothing like falsely accusing someone of payola, which is precisely what you did (and worse, to repeat your libel in a forum he was unlikely even to see, but no need to worry about that problem now).
No, my reason for calling you dishonest is much more fundamental than that. In the NRO article, you accused him of “accepting money from corporations he so admiringly opines about in his better-living-through-chemistry pieces,” when all he did was to accept a book grant in 1999 and work for a think tank (which, horror of all horrors, entails fundraising) since. Either you are the world’s sloppiest journalist, or you are dishonest. You tell me.
If the NRO article wasn’t bad enough, you went on to gloat even more about his firing from Scripps, again without even attempting to research the circumstances to determine whether or not it was justified.
Last and least, oh ethically challenged one, here’s some free advice: if you are going to continue making sport of falsely accusing fellow conservatives of dishonesty, you really should be more careful not to make yourself a target. For starters, consider editing or removing this post, in which you not only admit to, but actually brag about, having stolen Fumento’s bandwidth. Stealing is a different form of dishonesty than lying, of course, but no less serious.
I doubt that. For one thing, you’ve made it equally clear that you have trouble interpreting basic facts, and you have yet to correct your own, so by your own reasoning why on earth should I or anyone else trust you?! For another, I’m familiar with your type, the self-styled “maverick.” Basically, you’re the blogospheric equivalent of John McCain, who makes a point of stabbing his own friends in the back every now and then, not because they did anything to deserve it, but simply because it helps them establish their “independence.” Not buying it. If you know something about Fumento that Eamon Javers doesn’t, then it’s high time for you to put up. If you don’t, then it’s past time for you to shut up.
Xrlq (4cf61e) — 3/26/2006 @ 6:35 pmNow, now. Play nice. Can’t we all just get along?
X, I think this particular criticism is unfair (not opining on the others yay or nay):
You’ve sort of leveled the same charge at me before and I disagree with it. It’s good for someone to call ’em like they sees ’em, even if it hurts their own party. It’s called honesty. I think that’s what Cathy’s about. And it’s what I’m about.
Now, how it all plays out with this Fumento thing . . . I’m not getting in the middle of that. If you think Cathy has been unfair to Fumento, fine. If you’re right on the facts, that’s a fair criticism. (I stress that I don’t know a thing about it.) But I definitely think it’s unfair to criticize Cathy just for criticizing people in her own party. I think you should keep the two issues separate.
And the comparison to that rat bastard McCain — ooh, that’s a low blow.
Patterico (de0616) — 3/26/2006 @ 6:49 pmThere is something seriously, seriously wrong with Cathy Seipp and XRLQ has hit it on the head. This woman explicitly wrote that Sharon Waxman accused her of taking money for writing a column. She wrote it in NRO and she wrote it in the LA Times. She also admitted to collaborating with Waxman (who has serious problems of her own and whose hit piece the Times never ran.) I quoted Seipp saying this and somehow became a liar. Proof of my lying is that I deny being a liar! Ya gotta love it! Cathy, if you can’t invent things that take longer than ten second to falsify with a Google search then it’s time to hang up your spurs.
Michael Fumento (2a4c66) — 3/26/2006 @ 7:40 pmHow did this happen? Wasn’t this supposed to be about Ben Domenech?
Oh, well.
Patterico (de0616) — 3/26/2006 @ 7:52 pmWolf-pack mentality. Who’s the alpha, who’s the beta, who brings the food, who is wounded and gets eaten, etc.? On the other hand, the KosKids have a herd mentality — circle, don’t think.
nk (d7a872) — 3/26/2006 @ 7:58 pmWhen? I recall disagreeing with you on numerous occasions, and vehemently so on a few, but I don’t recall questioning your integrity (no, debating the semantics of the word “dowdify” doesn’t count) accusing you of mccaining anybody. It’s not a charge I make lightly.
I agree. I’m not exactly shy myself about going after fellow Republicans when I feel it is warranted. However, that’s not what’s happening here. This is not about calling it like one sees it, it’s about seeing it as one would like to call it, with an eye to playing the occasional maverick not out of fairness but merely to gain street cred. If the exact same non-scandal had erupted surrounding a left-wing researcher, I don’t believe for a minute that Cathy would be spewing this crap about him, and if she did, I’d be telling her to look for a better target.
In any event, every word I’ve said about Cathy is an example of me calling the matter as I see it. Is that allowed, too?
I’m sure McCain himself would agree, though he’d probably differ as to who it was a low blow to. His defense of his own backstabbing tendencies would be virtually identical to your defense of Seipp’s, and for precisely the same reason.
Xrlq (4cf61e) — 3/26/2006 @ 8:12 pmIndeed it was, but then someone started using the thread to attack the integrity of an innocent party other than Ben Domenech – and it wasn’t me.
Xrlq (4cf61e) — 3/26/2006 @ 8:14 pm“In a forum [Fumento] was unlikely to see” — for almost 3 hours! Well, you got me there.
OK, I give up. Sharon Waxman asking me about an attempted bribe I TURNED DOWN is the same as her accusing me of taking a bribe. My admitting that I’d hotlinked to a pic of Fumento in his underpants (sorry, swimsuit) and leaving that link up there, so he could replace it with a baboon’s butt labeled “Cathy Seipp,” was “dishonest” of me.
Black is white. Two plus two equals five. If only I weren’t such a maverick, I would have realized that before.
Cathy Seipp (17eb94) — 3/26/2006 @ 9:05 pmSure. I didn’t call you John McCain because of it.
Patterico (de0616) — 3/26/2006 @ 9:59 pmCS:
Yes, Maureen Dowd, I did get you there. As the full, undowdified quote made clear, the only reason Fumento ever saw this thread is because I alerted him to it. That he ultimately DID see it does not make your act of posting your crap in a forum he was UNLIKELY to see any less sleazy.
You seem to have trouble dealing with really basic concepts, so I’ll type this real slow: admitting to stealing bandwidth is not dishonest. Stealing bandwidth (or, for that matter, anything else), is.
Xrlq (8f53df) — 3/27/2006 @ 3:57 amNo, but if I had done anything to warrant the comparison, you should.
Xrlq (8f53df) — 3/27/2006 @ 3:58 amAsinistra (c493b3) — 3/27/2006 @ 10:40 am
Xrlq, I don’t see anything dishonest about linking to a picture (of himself) that someone else has placed on the web. What exactly did she do wrong?
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 3/27/2006 @ 11:25 amWhat she did wrong was to steal his bandwidth (that’s what “hotlink” means, unless you obtain the site owner’s permission, which I highly doubt she did). Stealing someone’s bandwidth means exactly what it sounds like it means: your site pulls resources from someone else’s host, effectively forcing him to subsidize your blog. If Seipp wanted to display Fumento’s photo, fine, but she should have done so at her own expense. All she had to do was to copy the photo, upload the copy to her own server, and link to that picture instead. The result would have looked identical to the end user, except that the page may have loaded a little faster since it’s usually quicker to pull all your content from one place rather than many. If she had done that, she wouldn’t have stolen anything, and Fumento would have had neither a reason nor the ability to retaliate with the baboon butt.
I have no sympathy whatsoever for bandwidth thieves. Neither, I suspect, does our host.
Xrlq (f52b4f) — 3/27/2006 @ 11:58 amThis is a strange question of etiquette, though. I would prefer a hotlink to an unattributed copy-and-upload, and in the early days of the web, hotlinking was encouraged.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 3/27/2006 @ 12:01 pmXrlq, if she had copied his picture this would have infringed on his copyright which really is a crime as opposed to linking which is not.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 3/27/2006 @ 12:19 pmRight. The question of hotlinking and “bandwidth theft” is, in the context of these two people, a matter of blogging etiquette far too nice (in the old sense of the word) for most of us to worry about. The issue at hand is the accusation that Fumento is bought and paid for, and somehow dishonest for failing to disclose his payments.
I’ve never seen evidence that Fumento has done anything illegal or unethical. His think , not Fumento, got a grant from Monsanto because they liked his book. Six years later, he says Monsanto is doing good work.
All things considered it would have been best for Fumento to disclose that fact. But this is at most the appearance of a conflict, and not a real conflict of interest. Knowing that he got a grant a while back doesn’t change my opinion of his writing or his conclusions, which has always been pretty favorable.
It is nowhere near in the same ballpark-nor even in the same league–as Domenech’s serial plagiarism and the comparison only makes Ms. Seipp, whose writing I also admire, look hysterical. I think most of us can see her pointing at a molehill and a mountain here, and they’re just not the same.
But guys, drop the bitching about bandwidth. That may not be stealing it but it’s sure wasting it.
See-Dubya (921613) — 3/27/2006 @ 12:47 pmHis think tank. Duh.
See-Dubya (921613) — 3/27/2006 @ 12:48 pmNonsense. Whether you copy directly or steal someone’s bandwidth, you are still setting things up for the same copy to be made each time a reader visits your site. The copying/copyright issues are the same – either you have a fair use (which Seipp probably did) or you don’t. If legally borrowing someone’s work and running off illegal copies on your own Xerox machine running on your own electricity is bad, breaking into that person’s office and running off the same copies on his Xerox machine, using his electricity, is worse.
If you seriously think you can get around copyright law by forcing the victim to make all the copies for you, I’d invite you to test that theory by “hotlinking” a copy of each day’s New York Times, in its entirety, to your own site.
Xrlq (f52b4f) — 3/27/2006 @ 12:50 pmI didn’t say you were wrong, just that I don’t care that much.
See-Dubya (921613) — 3/27/2006 @ 12:57 pmSee Dubya: my comment (#57) was directed at James’s (#54), not to yours (#55 or #56), which did not exist at the time I composed it. I do agree that bandwidth theft is a relatively minor offense, hence the phrase “last and least” in the comment in which I first brought it up. However, you gotta admit that it is more than a little ironic that Cathy not only refused to admit she was wrong to steal Fumento’s bandwidth, but even had the chutzpah to chide him for actually doing something about it.
Xrlq (f52b4f) — 3/27/2006 @ 1:21 pmJust for another perspective on the plagiarism issue, read Larisa Alexandrovna’s account of how the AP plagiarized her article and research, then had the cojones to respond to her call, “we do not credit blogs”.
Per Alexandrovna at the Huffington Post, “We contacted an AP senior editor and ombudsmen both and both admitted to having had the article passed on to them, and both stated that they viewed us as a blog and because we were a blog, they did not need to credit us. What we are or are not is frankly irrelevant. What is relevant is that by using a term like blog to somehow excuse plagiarism, the mainstream press continues to lower the bar for acceptable behavior. It need not matter where the AP got the information, research, and actual wording from. What matters is that if they use it in part or in whole, they must attribute properly. A blog or a small press publication or grads students working in the corner of a library all equally deserve credit for their work, period.”
Sounds like a reasonable complaint to me.
BTW, this was linked on Instapundit
Dave in W-S (2a57fc) — 3/27/2006 @ 2:02 pmXrlq, ok I wasn’t aware she had “hotlinked” the picture rather than simply provided the link. I guess this is an etiquette violation although I doubt it is a crime.
As for your “chutzpah” complaint what she said was:
Oops! Well, that’s what I get for hotlinking the pic of Fumento in his underwear directly from his site. He’s replaced it with the one below, which I leave here for posterior posterity:
which strikes me more as a rueful acknowledgement of error.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 3/27/2006 @ 2:17 pmI’d guess, without more facts, that Cathy went a little overboard; and X is doing so now.
But if AP doesn’t credit blogs, most of whom don’t get paid, why not have an ethic that says once somebody HAS gotten paid, there’s no more need to credit them? Share & share alike, in a Marxist “to each according to his bandwidth desires”.
Maybe in the Information Revolution, we need to stop using gov’t to support monopoly profits for successful innovation — end intellectual property rights and revert merely to reputation?
But how to get innovation? Tip jars! Tax Credits! Leave it to the amateurs doing it for love! Gov’t subsidies!
Tom Grey (839fb7) — 3/28/2006 @ 5:04 amNah, not this year.