take your answer off the air...

  • HorsesAss.Org: the straight poop on WA politics & the press
    progressive brilliance from the guy who pointed out Tim Eyman's nascent horse's-assedness
  • Talker's Magazine
    The quirky talk radio trade mag. Check the Talk Radio Research Project- it's not very scientific, but places on the top 15 talkers list (scroll down to Talk Radio Audiences By Size)) are as hotly contested as Emmys (and mean just about as much).
  • The Advocate
    No, not THAT Advocate... it's the Northwest Progressive Institute's Official Blog.
  • Media Matters
    Documentation of right-wing media in video, audio and text.
  • Orcinus
    home of David Neiwert, freelance investigative journalist and author who writes extensively about far-right hate groups
  • Hominid Views
    "People, politics, science, and whatnot" Darryl is a statistician who fights imperialism with empiricism, gives good links and wry commentary.
  • Jesus' General
    An 11 on the Manly Scale of Absolute Gender, a 12 on the Heavenly Scale of the 10 Commandments and a 6 on the earthly scale of the Immaculately Groomed.
  • Howie in Seattle
    Howie Martin is the Abe Linkin' of progressive Seattle.
  • Streaming Radio Guide
    Hellishly long (5795!) list of radio streaming, steaming on the Internets.
  • The Naked Loon
    News satire -- The Onion in the Seattle petunia patch.
  • Irrational Public Radio
    "informs, challenges, soothes and/or berates, and does so with a pleasing vocal cadence and unmatched enunciation. When you listen to IPR, integrity washes over you like lava, with the pleasing familiarity of a medium-roast coffee and a sensible muffin."
  • The Maddow Blog
    Here's the hyper-interactive La Raych of MSNBC. daily show-vids, freakishly geeky research, and classy graphics.
  • Northwest Broadcasters
    The AM, FM, TV and digital broadcasters of Northwest Washington, USA and Southwest British Columbia, Canada. From Kelso, WA to the northern tip of Vancouver Island, BC - call letters, formats, slogans, networks, technical data, and transmitter maps. Plus "recent" news.
  • News Corpse
    The Internet's chronicle of media decay.
  • The Moderate Voice
    The voice of reason in the age of Obama, and the politics of the far-middle.
  • News Hounds
    Dogged dogging of Fox News by a team who seems to watch every minute of the cable channel so you don't have to.
  • HistoryLink
    Fun to read and free encyclopedia of Washington State history. Founded by the late Walt Crowley, it's an indispensable tool and entertainment source for history wonks and surfers alike.

right-wing blogs we like

  • The Reagan Wing
    Hearin lies the real heart of Washington State Republicans. Doug Parris runs this red-meat social conservative group site which bars no holds when it comes to saying who they are and who they're not; what they believe and what they don't; who their friends are and where the rest of the Republicans can go. Well-written, and flaming.
  • Orbusmax
    inexhaustible Drudgery of NW conservative news
  • The Radio Equalizer
    prolific former Seattle KVI, KIRO talk host speaks authoritatively about radio.
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 02/2005


« Limbaugh cleared of drug charges: still can't get it up | Main | BREAKING: Tim Eyman to KTTH mornings »

July 06, 2006



She will try to spin this for her 3 fans that this is yet another attack by the "liberal media", but hopefully this time it will take, and she will be reduced to writing for the fringiest right wing publications. She is not worthy of traditional media outlets.

Karma is a bitch, the crows are coming home to roost, she is reaping what she has sown, and all those other cliche's.


When she stops commanding those $25K fees for speaking engagements, then I'll say that the crows have come home. Until then, she makes me sick.

Have we all read "It Can't Happen Here" by Sinclair Lewis?


why is it always penis jokes with Ann Coulter? she is a woman, isn't she?


mac..that seems to up for debate....

The Shreveport Times is considering dropping her...not to quell the voice of conservatives, but they state they would replace her with another conservative. But they feel that her antics are done purely to keep herself in the news and line her own pockets and they dont really want to be a part of that anymore. The Cedar Rapids Gazette dropped her after her comments about the 9-11 widows.


biology doesn't lie



If s/he is a women, s/he certanly has a hell of an Adam's apple.



Boy, I go away on vacation, and I miss Mike Webb getting in a fight and Dori admitting he was wrong. And now, finally, the MSM is finally noticing that Coulter steals half her stuff. What a happy return this is. Read some of Coulter's stuff on Jason Blair and you can see that this will be a lot of fun.

Edmonds Dan

OK, first things first...

I'm not a Coulter fan. I find her ascerbic, predictable, and not funny. I'd rather listen to any number of other commentators before I listen to Coulter.

That said, is the link provided the ONLY source for "plagiarism"? If so, that's a pretty tenuous claim at best! It seems to me that the one quote listed - from Alan Keyes - was fully attributed by the words "as Alan Keyes stated...".

If the rest of the "problems" are plagiarism, then so is every single newspaper story about the same event. It seems to me that she was stating facts, not copying text (structure, grammar, and words used are different).

I mean, compare the following:

Other murderers furloughed by Dukakis included Donald Robertson and Bradford Boyd. Robertson raped a ninety-three-year-old woman and her seventy-two-year-old daughter and then stamped on their chests so hard that he crushed their internal organs

Donald Robertson raped a 93-year-old woman and her 72-year-old daughter. Okay? After he raped them, he kicked them and beat them so bad, he crushed their chests and the internal organs in their chests.

Those two read like two different reporters covering the same crime. Like I would expect to see in the PI and Times when they cover the same story with local reporters. Different phrasing, different descriptions, different words altogether...

Gotta be other things to go after Coulter for...

Let the pillorying begin now - I know, I spoke out against a pretty poor "condemnation" of a conservative, thus I must be pilloried for my "blind support" of the conservative cause. Is it too much to ask for at least a little substance when making claims of plagiarism?


Ann Coulter is laughing all the way to the bank. Until that stops, it's hard to celebrate any little victory.


Last night on Countdown, they had several examples up where she had lifted whole paragraphs with only one or two words changing. One such instance, I agree, might be coincidence. However the number of instances just keeps growing.


If it is without attribution, its plagerism


Media Matters finally has the Olberman segment up. Well worth watching:


Edmonds Dan

And Olbermann's "expert" tears down his own case:

She had citations, maybe three or four paragraphs later but, you know, the preceding four paragraphs were all quoted from the same source. So, you know, it was that sort of free and loose use of citations that made it very, very difficult to try to determine whether Ann Coulter was citing that material or whether she was just trying to pass it off as her own, but again, just playing free and loose with the citations.

He even admits, near the end of his interview, that she has citations, just that he found them confusing in where they were placed.

I guess we can claim Coulter has a few issues with locating citations in the text that some people found a bit difficult to follow, but as far as not including citations? Straight from the "experts" mouth - not true. Citations were made.


Are you a tad bit defensive? She's written several books and one would think she'd know how to do it. Maybe not . . .


Well EdDan..tell it to the United Press Syndicate, who is unhappy enough to do their own investigation as to whether they should can her skinny ass from their papers...


I guess this is only a big deal if you hate Ann Coulter. I remember that some people made a big deal out of the fact that Martin Luther King had plagerized on his doctoral thesis. I guess if you think plagerism is a terrible thing and nullifies anything someone has to say, then we probably start talking about removing MLK Holiday. Of course, that's the line of thinking for rabid haters.


lol...right..Thats me, the rabid hater. What a unique comparison..MLK and Ann Coulter. She would be so pleased!

I doubt that United Press Syndicate hates her...they are just kinda funny about that honesty thing. They must hate America.



So you believe MLK should be denigrated for his plagerism too?

I don't, but it sounds like you do.

Mr Boondock

MLK and Ann Coulter? People1st, you sure is stoopid...


You are the one who brought up MLK..not me. I thought your comparison was...unique. That was the nicest word I could think of. You must wear Red Ball Jets to make all those leaps of assumptions!

( I bet Fremont remembers Red Ball Jets!)



Yes, I brought up MLK. I'm interested in clarifying just what you are so energized about concerning this thread.

Is the issue plagerism?

Do you think that someone who plagerizes deserves public scorn?

Do you think that someone who plagerizes is disqualified from the public discourse?

Answers to the questions would be nice, not your usual dodge to avoid taking a tough stand.


uh...I would say you are the one whose panties are in a twist about this. I couldnt care less about the Coultergeist.

But, I want to go to bed, so I will answer your questions, even though it will make Joanie laugh and say " I told you so.."

No, I dont think it is right that MLK plagiarized. I dont think it is right that Coulter plagiarized. But to compare a person known for working to bring civil rights to a segment of society, with someone whose specialty is spewing hate and lies...well that is just.....unique. lololol


and so I wont be accused of plagiarizing....I just read this on daily kos:

"I would be so unbelievably THRILLED if this were the last time any of us would have to spend any time at all discussing this woman. How great it would be to assign her permanently to the "we don't care asphere" and let her drag herself back to Florida to hang out with her disgusting fur coats and plan her defense to criminal charges of voter fraud. AND NEVER HAVE TO HEAR FROM HER AGAIN. "


Thanks for the answers. Sounds like your reaction to the issue of plagerism depends on whether you like the messenger or not. That's an honest answer - doesn't seem very principled to me, but at least you're being honest.


From her bottled yellow hair, to her acidic, plagiarizing, black widow like, fanatical and hysterical, alto-like assertations of 9-11 widows and liberals, Meester Coulter's next book subject is "2 for 1", How to date a Hermaphrodite...if you must...


I was thinking I'm glad it's you and not me! (LOL) But you did yourself proud, Sparky. I, for one, often look at the messenger when evaluating messages . . . If Coulter weren't spewing hate all the time, I'd probably give her a pass . . . depending on the degree of the infraction.

But, PeFi, you know we liberals are generous in our thoughts and minds about people who do good. I am a forgiving sort when it is earned.


The smug, chortling creep thinks she's laughing all the way to the bank again with her newest hateful book, but she doesn't seem to realize that this latest piece of vicious crap has triggered a bit of a shift in the public's perception of her- despite whether it's temporarily number one or not. People are seeing how much she enjoys being cruel and hateful this time around and are looking at the outrageous quotes of her book and being repulsed by it.


PeFirst, what I believe is that you just like to pick an argument, because you have twisted my words or "quoted me" with things I have never said every time. That is sloppy debating....but keep trying!
I am going to go out and enjoy the day.

Edmonds Dan

Joanie wrote: Are you a tad bit defensive? She's written several books and one would think she'd know how to do it. Maybe not . . .

And it sounds like she did provide citations, just not in a format that one person liked. But the "accuser" did admit that the citation was there, just confusing to him...

Sparky wrote: Well EdDan..tell it to the United Press Syndicate, who is unhappy enough to do their own investigation as to whether they should can her skinny ass from their papers...

Sure, it's not the veracity of the allegation, it's the seriousness of the charge that matters, right?

Apparently someone's claiming she plagarized. If so, then Coulter gets what she deserves. But so far, the evidence is non-existent, and even the individual leading the charge admitted citations were made.

The UPS of course is looking into it; is that reason to assume it's true? Is the mere accusation proof of wrongdoing?

My guess - this goes away, because there isn't any substance to the claims. And those shouting "plagiarism!" will end up with egg on their face.


um..that "someone" is the New York Post. As Joanie has said many times on here, you have to watch something other than Faux News ifn ya wanna hear what's going on outside of the bubble. UPS is looking into it because their integrity is on the line...they sydicate her column to over 100 newspapers and if she has been plagiarizing, that is 100 newspapers whose integrity is also on the line.

There is some fairly sophisticated software out there that, when fed written mateiral, is designed to detect when someone plagiarizes. Her stuff made all the bells ring and the red lights flash.
UPS said they have two different tools they will use to determine if she plagiarized.

While personally I couldn't give a rat's ass about Coulter, Im not the one who writes the newspaper headlines. I am not alone in questioning her honesty. At this point they are just allegations which are being delved into. But I also know that if she is found guilty, the Right will immediately launch into the "liberals-hate-America-so-a-good-Christian-woman-like-Ann-must-be-silenced drek we are all so used to hearing...lol...



I wasn't picking an argument - only trying to understand what you believe. You appeared to be taking delight that Coulter was in trouble for plagerism, and I was of the opinion that it wasn't something I was paying much attention to. When I raised the point about the fact that MLK had also plagerized, you commented that my comparison was "unique", but at that point you didn't really indicate how you felt about his plagerism and whether you would delight in him getting denigrated.

Then Joanie chimed in. If you are of a similar belief as her, then I'm guessing that both of you choose to have selective disdain for people that plagerize. Like I said, I appreciate the honest answer. It's different than the way I approach the issue, but at least I know where you stand.

For me, I focus on the action first, the person second. Someone that is a "good person" that willfully commits a wrongful action should be subject to the same scrutiny as someone people think is a "bad person" committing the same action. To me, it's just an extension of the concept that we should be a society of laws, not of men. Of course there's room for mercy, but I'm not in favor of simply dismissing the action or saying that it didn't really matter.

I'll conclude. My position - if people think plagerism is such a bad thing, and want to pile on someone like Coulter, have at it. But it would be more consistent to pile on similarly to MLK or Joe Biden or Ward Churchill, etc. for the same offense. Selective "piling on" just doesn't sit well with me. In this particular case, the issue of plagerism isn't a hot button issue to me and I'm content to let others do whatever it is they need to do in response to it.


"you choose to have selective disdain for people that plagerize" . . .

I don't have disdain. You have a way of characterizing other peoples motives/actions that fits your view of the world.

I merely said that I might be more forgiving of one than the other. What don't you understand about that?

You live in a black and white world, PeFi. I see shades of gray. Actions speak to me. A person's character speaks to me. For you, stealing a quart of milk to feed a child would be the same as Ken Lay's stealing of pensions to buy seven summer homes. Because, as you just said, " I focus on the action first." And stealing is stealing.

Thank goodness our justice system tends to be more liberal than conservative that way. Although it does disappoint at times . . .


I like our justice system just fine. Stealing a quart of milk is not a crime of equal magnitude (and potential punishment) as stealing millions of dollars from innocent people.

You don't like the term "selective disdain - what term would be more appropriate to describe being "more forgiving of one than the other"? I'm not trying to characterize people's motives any way other than they share with the rest of us. Like anyone else on earth, I use terms I'm familiar with and understand. I'm open to using terms that others understand better. How should I describe it when someone says "celebrate every little victory" in response to Ann Coulter's plagerism and then says "I am a forgiving sort when it is earned" in response to MLK plagerizing? You see the same action (plagerism) and respond differently with your judgments of the person. What term would be more accurate for you - "selective enforcement"? "selective sympathy"? How should I describe your approach to other people like myself that would have used the term "selective disdain"?

Actions tend to be "black and white" while motives can be "gray". That's why our justice system is good. We can have mercy on someone who commits a wrongful act but who otherwise appears to have good character or good motives. I don't think we differ much, but we can test that opinion. When someone steals something - let's say it's that quart of milk - then a crime has been committed. I wouldn't ever say "that's not a crime". I might agree though that the punishment should be minimal (or maybe even zero) for the desperate father trying to feed his starving child vs severe punishment for some thug brandishing a gun who is doing it for some terrible motive. Do you agree with my assessment in this paragraph?



Here is the problem with your argument. While it is bad that Dr. King plagerized in his thesis, that is one little mark in an otherwise large and important career. It is not like Dr. King is known for his thesis.

On the other hand, the only reason anyone cares about Ann Coulter is that s/he writes his/her hate spewing books. And, if it turns out that she doesn't even write them, but just cuts and paste, then she deserves the same fate as Jason Blair, Ben Domenech and any other writer who steals from others.

And Edmond Dan, deceptive citations will get you in as much trouble as no citation at all. You can't make someone else’s work look like your own without consequences..., of course, as Rush Limbaugh has taught us, being conservative is never having to say your sorry.


JDB - when you refer to him as Dr. King, I guess you must be indicating that he is known in part for his thesis. He earned his doctoral degree with a plagerized thesis.

But I agree that Rev. King accomplished many great works in civil rights and the plagerism doesn't denigrate those.


". . . a crime has been committed . . . " = stealing. You see the action. You said it yourself. Now you want to be selective in how you assess the action. Can't have it both ways.

King deserved a compassionate assessment and/or judgment; Coulter deserves a less compassionate assessment and/or judgment. My opinion. If you think she deserves a compassionate assessment or judgment, then give it to her.

Again, I don't "selectively disdain" her for plagiarizing. I completely and comprensively disdain her.


From the teachings of Thich Nhat Hanh:

"Do not think that the knowledge you presently possess is changeless, absolute truth. Avoid being narrow-minded and bound to present views. Learn and practice non-attachment from views in order to be open to receive others' viewpoints. Truth is found in life and not merely in conceptual knowledge. Be ready to learn throughout our entire life and to observe reality in yourself and in the world at all times."

By blogging, I am collecting information about reality to discover the truth in our political life. Our discussions of the poor is an example of the difficulty of truth gathering. Sometimes I read about a problem here and then go out to gather some more information and build an independent world view.


PeFi, in rereading the posts, you have been throwing out a spin on our words.

Nobody has said that plagiarizing is okay. We've all been talking about character. And to compare King and Coulter in the same sentence does nothing more than disingenuously inflame the discussion.

If that was your intent, then you succeeded in distracting the discussion. If the allegations are true, Coulter should have known better.


Jeez, Sparks, I'm way too young to remember Red Ball Jets, but I did covet PF Flyers! Love your TNH quote...perhaps PeFi will find some enlightenment.
PeFi: Please consider the above advice re: truth and learning and Joans' comments re: compassionate judgement and please spell plagiarize correctly. The quotes in Ann Coulter's book WERE cited, but the citations were from the same, unvalidated source, The Illinois Right to Life Committee. Copying statements from uncited sources is NOT research, but simple plagiarism.


I don't think I misunderstood. I read people using the plagiarism (see, I can learn) as a means to attack a person. If the issue was character, and the plagiarism was the means to denigrate the character, just realize how that appears to other observers. By implication, "good" people like MLK would be smeared with the same character flaw.

But it appears we all agree. If the society declares something illegal (e.g., stealing) or wrong (e.g., plagiarism), then we all acknowledge the inappropriateness of that action. And we're not selective in declaring the action to be wrong. We also agree that our judgment of the person or how we treat them in response to their action can vary based on our desire to be merciful. And our degree of mercy can be influenced by the perpetrator's character, past actions, motivations, circumstances, etc. That's one of the foundations of justice.

Now, a spelling tip for Fremont - the correct word is "judgment".


Nobody said you misunderstood.

PeFi, you will spend your life explaining yourself. Our words spoke for themselves. You took us on a wild goose chase by introducing your appalling need to equate King and Coulter. I still don't know how that piece of wordsmithery added to the conversation about Coulter.


Thanks for the tip, PeFi...you are absolutely correct about judgment...I caught it, myself, too late, alas! But I do have problems with your use of the word mercy as a foundation of justice. And I don't agree that a charge of plagiarism is meant merely to "denigrate the character". MLK was smeared by charges of plagiarism; yet, he also won the Nobel Prize. So, I don't understand your point about "how that [charges of plagiarism] appears to other observers". Do charges of plagiarism obviate all other aspects of character? Does Monica Lewinsky obviate the Kosovo Peace Accord?


Bingo, Joans!


I'll make sure to cite my source:

"But I agree that Rev. King accomplished many great works in civil rights and the plagerism doesn't denigrate those." (1)

I equate Coulter and MLK strictly on the basis of plagiarism. Both seem to have committed the act. Agreed?

I didn't make any comparison of their character. I speculated that people who hate Coulter appeared to find some energy over this issue. Then some people started taking offense over the citation of MLK as someone who plagiarized - I'm guessing because they weren't happy that MLK and Ann Coulter were guilty of the same offense, and they didn't like the fact that the two could be equated in this regard. At least, that's how I assess the whole situation.

(1) Blatherwatch, "New york post: coulter makes fake for god's sake", PeopleFirst, July 7, 2006, 11:45 am.


PeFi: "I equate Coulter and MLK strictly on the basis of plagiarism. Both seem to have committed the act. Agreed?"

Plagierism has been committed by many, many notable people. I still wonder at your choice of King as a comparison. I guess I wonder at your choice of anybody. So what? How is that relevant to Coulter?


"I speculated that people who hate Coulter appeared to find some energy over this issue. Then some people started taking offense over the citation of MLK as someone who plagiarized - I'm guessing because they weren't happy that MLK and Ann Coulter were guilty of the same offense, and they didn't like the fact that the two could be equated in this regard. At least, that's how I assess the whole situation."

My advice in this case - Don't use plagiarism to attack someone you don't like because people you like have committed the same act.


You are entitled to speculate. That doesn't make it fact.

Your choice to equate King with Coulter speaks for itself. We have sufficiently explained ourselves. Your view seems to be fixed and inflexible; so be it.

My advice to you? If you don't like the commentary and have nothing relevant to contribute, don't.

You remind me of kids I hear on the playgound: neener, neener, neener, you did it, too . . . I expect adults to be able to add more to the conversation than that.


Welcome back Fremont! :-)


Thanks, Sparks....I was chardonnaying in the Yakima Valley....you were in my thoughts and my riesling!


PeFi cautions: "Don't use plagiarism to attack someone you don't like because people you like have committed the same act." Didn't you cop that directly from Ephesians 3:12???? Admit it or we won't like you...or will we? (Joans is right, PeFi, you are intractable!)


Actually, I was curious about the way some people were taking glee in attacking someone for plagiarism. And then they suddenly took offense when it was pointed out that someone they admire was guilty of the same thing. And I thought their reaction was childish.

So we have differing views on the situation. We can leave it at that. I think we all understand where everyone else is coming from on this.

The comments to this entry are closed.

April 2013

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30        

Tip Jar

Change is good

Tip Jar

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    pacific nw talk stations

    • KIRO 710ESPN Seattle 710 KHz
      Games and sports-blabber
    • KIROFM 97.3
      Multi-format: news and nearly all local talk. This is where classic KIRO AM news talk radio went... hopefully, not to die. The home of Dave Ross & Luke Burbank, Dori Monson, Ron & Don, Frank Shiers, Bill Radke, Linda Thomas, Tony Miner and George Noory.
    • KUOW FM 94.9
      Seattle's foremost public radio news and talk.
    • KVI am 570 KHz
      Visit the burnt-out husk of one of the seminal right-wing talkers in all the land. Here's where once trilled the reactionary tones of Rush Limbaugh, John Carlson, Kirby Wilbur, Mike Siegel, Peter Weissbach, Floyd Brown, Dinky Donkey, and Bryan Suits. Now it's Top 40 hits from the '60's & '70's aimed at that diminishing crowd who still remembers them and can still hear.
    • KTTH am 770 KHz
      Right wing home of local, and a whole bunch of syndicated righties such as Glennn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Lars Larsony, and for an hour a day: live & local David Boze.
    • KPTK am 1090 KHz
      Syndicated liberal talk. Stephanie Miller, Thom Hartmann, Ed Schultz, Randi Rhodes, Norman Goldman fill in the large hole to the left on Northwest radio dial.
    • KLFE AM 1590 kHz
      Syndicated right-wing 2nd stringers like Mark Levin, Bill Bennett, Mike Gallagher, Dennis Prager, Dennis Miller and Hugh Hewitt inhabit this timid-voiced neighbor honker for your radio enjoyment (unless you're behind something large like Costco).
    • KOMOAM
      News, traffic, Ken Schram and John Carlson.
    • Washington State Radio Stations
      Comprehensive list of every danged AM & FM station on the dial.
    • KKOL am 1300 KHz
      Once a rabid right-wing talker, except for Lou Dobbs, it's all business....