Paranoid? Well, sometimes “parallel” ideas bleed over into “cribbing off the next guy’s paper.” You know what I’m talking about.
There are too many correspondences here to ignore.
- Romney’s “secret video” and the Dem politics of “Squirrel!” By Michelle Malkin • September 18, 2012 11:42 PM
First, that she uses the EXACT same cut from UP on YouTube, except hers is at the end of her blog reposting of her syndicated column, while mine is at the beginning of my unremunerated blog. Money is involved here, folks. But you be the judge.
Second that she talks about the “media lapdogs,” while mine cites the “ the lapdogs of the ‘mainstream’ press.”
Third, that my last column ends thusly:
Which is probably accurate. The squirrels ARE coming for you, “politically keereckt” pseudo-liberal swine.
[Acorn photo - see below]
They’re coming for you because they think you’re nuts.
And hers ends thusly:
Let the parsers and panicky pundits chase their tails and hurl their nuts. This election is about America’s makers versus America’s takers. Romney should never, ever apologize for making that clear.
Fourth, that she makes a gratuitous defense of Breitbart and O’Keefe’s video takedowns, which I end my column with (by indirection, including THIS photo, which the cogniscenti will recognize from Breitbart and O’Keefe’s takedown of ACORN):
Now, the same media lapdogs who had conniption fits when the late Andrew Breitbart and conservative investigative journalist James O’Keefe used undercover video are tripping over themselves to publish glowing profiles of Carter the Fourth and his impressive “furtive efforts” to secure the Romney tapes.
The approach and metaphor I took and the approach and metaphor Malkin takes are the same. The order might be slightly different and she’s a lot more angry and less funny than I was, but it’s the SAME DAMNED APPROACH. Except, in her case, her “false equivalencies” are just that. Classic rightie projection, methinks.
But let’s not get into ideological differences. This isn’t about what anybody believes. It’s about potential appropriation of intellectual property. And property rights are a matter of exquisite concern to the GOP and to stopping all the “moochers” that Mr. Romney and Ms. Malkin are so vehemently against.
And the question becomes: Is it probable that she saw my piece?
Well, take a look at this screencap from Memeorandum on August 16 (Malkin blog and my blog highlighted):
click pic to enlarge
I’m not claiming this as a causal link, but as an indication that Malkin’s people look at Memeorandum. Let’s dig a little deeper: Michelle Malkin reads Memeorandum. Don’t doubt that. (If you do, just click here to see the word search on her blog for “Memeorandum”).
Take a look at this from Malkin’s self-congratulatory “Empty Chair Day” column from September 3, 2012 [emphasis added]:
Here’s that link from the first “here“: http://memeorandum.com/#a120903p49
Finally, take a look at how she picks the exact same section* of UP to use as her video link (different YouTube account, same footage):
My August 16 2012 “UP” clip 1722K:
[* mine also includes the evil dogs' "Squirrel!" moment, which accounts, perhaps for the extra 130K]
Seriously: the EXACT same footage from the same movie?
Michelle Malkin’s blog entry is her “Creator’s Syndicate” column reposted on her blog. If she IS plagiarizing my work for her syndicated newspaper column, this isn’t just some little bloggy tiff. It’s a serious case of professional malfeasance.
You know, “appropriation of intellectual property”? My stuff is under copyright, period, and NOT any “Creative Commons” licensing BS.
Now, am I making this up? Or is there something more going on than astronomical odds and incredible coincidence?
One parallel would be OK. Even two. But there’s more than that going on here.
Let the reader be the judge.
UPDATE: Take a look here.