quote:Originally posted by katharina: Oh, I think the recipe thing is fine. "Family Recipes" to me means recipes the family loves, not that the family invented.
Credit should be given, but I don't consider it plagiarism.
If they weren't credited, then it is plagiarism, pretty much by definition -- using someone else's work without giving proper credit. Even if they were properly credited, it's likely a copyright violation. But also probably not the candidate's fault. Although if Mrs. McCain was asked for her favorite recipes she should have told the staff person she gave them to that they were word-for-word off a published site. It may have come as a surprise to the person responsible for putting them on the campaign website that they weren't original (or at least modified.)
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:makes me question whether Cindy McCain has ever even cooked them
Exactly. I think it was probably a campaign staff member, if anything. I don't have a problem with McCain seeming like a regular guy - to the degree we want a regular guy to have experience and achievements running for president.
There was a time that I saw Cindy as somewhat of a homewrecker (though I deplore the fact that that is a label applied to a second wife and not a remarrying man). As I came to learn that McCain was disabled in the war and came home to an ailing wife, I have a little more sympathy for why they became estranged. Maybe. Maybe I'm being charitable to people who have not even explained the first thing about it.
I actually visit the McCain site from time to time and never noticed the recipes. P.S. The page turned on me!
I should look into it. Recipes are a tricky business. Most chocolate chip cookie recipes are totally weird because the publisher has to include a unique recipe, so they tweak them with pointless fractionals. 2 2/3 cups flour? 1/2 cup butter and 1/2 cup shortening? Come on, now. The kitchen aid recipe has no fractionals at all, and the cookies come out marvelous.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I doubt Cindy McCain ever cooks. She grew up rich and is personally worth over a $100 million dollars. I'd be shocked if she's cooked them.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The list of ingredients in a recipe are not subject to copyright. Moreover, the means of making any particular recipe is not covered by copyright. Directly copying the instructions can be a copyright violation, but rewriting the recipe and posting that is likely not.
I don't say this as a commentary on the McCain issue, but to comment on the legal aspects.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
She has a master's degree in special education as well, and started an organization to transport medical personnel to disaster sites back in the 80's. Unfortunately, her prescription addiction and the termination of the director of that venture marred its integrity.
It does appear, though, that she believed in giving back as a young, rich person. wiki . P.S. It also seems she only assumed an active role at the beer distributorship after her father died, and that she did other things to develop her leadership in the meantime.
I'm still perplexed by her. She's a more interesting person than I thought.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That struck me as somewhat fanatical with the constant "O-ba-ma" chant. And mostly all it says to me is that Hollywood really, really likes Obama.
I agree with the sentiment though.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:There was a time that I saw Cindy as somewhat of a homewrecker (though I deplore the fact that that is a label applied to a second wife and not a remarrying man).
I'm pretty sure that term should only be applied to someone who knowingly has an affair with a married person, who then gets a divorce and marries the homewrecker. I've also heard it applied to both men and women, though usually with an ironic flavor for men.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think a homewrecker necessarily has to marry the divorcing spouse to qualify for the title. Knowingly having an affair that leads to a divorce is enough.
Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My objection to the term "homewrecker" is that it implies the responsibility for the failed marriage lies with someone other than the husband or wife.
This isn't to say that I don't think people who knowingly have an affair with a married person aren't doing something wrong or even something that contributes the failure of the marriage. I simply mean that the primary responsibility for wrecking the marriage must lie with the husband or wife who had the affair and not the third party.
To me the term "homewrecker" (which is almost always applied to women), implies that men can't resist the wiles of a willing seductive woman so its not his fault its hers.
The bottom line is that it is the husband and wife who bare the responsibility for their marriage. They are the ones who have made the vows.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:To me the term "homewrecker" (which is almost always applied to women), implies that men can't resist the wiles of a willing seductive woman so its not his fault its hers.
I've always just seen it as a judgment against those who knowingly chase married people. However, your interpretation may well be closer to the term's original context, in which case I think your reaction is justified.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: Also fan made ads for Obama. Made by professional film makers with donations. They're really good. The college one is my favorite I think:
posted
That article about the recipes is really bizarre. It makes it sound like the intern thought, "Hey, Mitt Romney's website had recipes on it, maybe we should have some too" and then went and found some online without consulting the McCains at all.
If (big, big if) that's really what happened, it seems very strange. Why wouldn't you, if you had such a "brilliant" idea, actually ask the candidate's family for their favorite recipes? And if the idea was to make them sound like "regular folks" why on earth would you pick recipes like Ahi Tuna and Passion Fruit Mousse?
This goes in my "What in the world was s/he thinking?!?" file.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: And if the idea was to make them sound like "regular folks" why on earth would you pick recipes like Ahi Tuna and Passion Fruit Mousse?
This goes in my "What in the world was s/he thinking?!?" file.
The staffer was probably trying to make them sound like regular folks from Hawaii, where passion fruit grow like weeds and Ahi is a staple.
Honestly, after reading this article, I went to the FoodTV website to check out that Mousse recipe.
But I agree, this is a very bizarre story.
Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
A profile of Barack Obama written by a dedicated conservative who knew him back in his Harvard Law Review days. She has a lot of good things to say about him.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that all candidates for president and "first spouse" should be required to participate in the "hatrack recipe challenge". Who knows when all armed international conflict will be supplanted by food cook offs. We wouldn't want to risk being taken over by the Vietnamese or the Italians because our leaders couldn't properly handle a creme brulee torch.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:One thing that seems clear to me is that Obama's upward curve has flattened in the last week, and so has Clinton's decline.
I suspect we're hitting the bottom of Clinton's base. There are, after all, a number of middle-aged women who have waited their whole lives to vote for a woman and aren't going to pass up this opportunity just because she's a big ol' ball of evil.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's flattened in general because Obama and Clinton have saturated the state with ads and visits. Most people have made up their minds. After two months, millions spent, and dozens of visits, most of them are probably set in their decision.
This is pretty much the same it has been in most states. Obama comes in however many points down, spends some time, people get to know him, he pulls even or ahead of Clinton, and then they vote. Some study says this is because most people don't know much about Obama until he comes to town, and most of them like what they see once they do.
I was reading an article yesterday about how Obama turnout in Philly might be depressed because Obama refuses to grease some palms there with cash. It's a very old political machine that doles out cash to street walkers rather than relying on volunteers like most of Obama's campaign does, and though they want to support him...they want the cash more. Clinton will likely swoop in with the dollars they want and get their get out the vote support.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I was reading an article yesterday about how Obama turnout in Philly might be depressed because Obama refuses to grease some palms there with cash. It's a very old political machine that doles out cash to street walkers rather than relying on volunteers like most of Obama's campaign does, and though they want to support him...they want the cash more. Clinton will likely swoop in with the dollars they want and get their get out the vote support.
I read the same article (mighta been from here), I kinda want him to just give in and pay up. Yeah, it's a political machine of sorts, but the people getting the money are the people on the streets doing the work. And they need the money. It's not like it's going a few big politicians, it's going to a ton of campaign workers who give up their time to help get up the vote. Hell, if he'd pay me to drive people to the polls for him I'd love it. I mean I'd still do it voluntarily, but I don't see anything wrong with sending the volunteers some money for their efforts, if he has it to spare.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
ABC's Democratic debate: what the hell was that?
Hey, moderators? I don't give a crap about Rev. Wright, Bosnia, lapel pins, voter bitterness or any of the other meaningless drivel you focused on for the first 45 minutes. Those questions have been answered and answered ad nauseum already. How about the war on terror, or foreign policy, or torture? How about education, or the environment, or our rising debt, or the recession? Ooh, how about health care?
Obama did not do well. Not bad on Bitter-gate and he had the better closing words, I thought. But mostly he looked tired and worn, and he stumbled a few times. Probably to be expected when he has to defend himself against his opponent and both moderators, but that's not an excuse. He'll face much worse than that later. (By the end the audience was heckling Charlie Gibson!)
Mostly what this "debate" did was demonstrate exactly the sort of media idiocy that I cannot stand. Silly enough that Stephanopolous (former Clinton staffer) was one of the moderators, but an entire evening of gotcha questions apparently designed to trip up a candidate and get a good gaffe sound byte just pisses me off. I wanted substance. I got mean-spirited cotten candy.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I skipped it, entirely because Charlie Gibson was the moderator. He's a tool, and I wasn't expecting anything good out of it. I like Anderson Cooper/Wolf Blitzer's debates a lot better.
Fewer rules, more free flowing debate, and much, much better questions.
If you ask me, before every debate, people should send in their debate questions they want answered, the moderators should find their favorites and they should post 50 of them on a website and let people vote on them. The top vote getters will be the questions asked at the debate and the moderator can make sure it's actually a debate and not a really well organized press conference. Debates are a joke. More and more I'm finding the debate from the West Wing episode between Santos and Vinnick to be a fantasy icon of what they should all be like but never will be.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Something similar to that. I think the moderators should have done a better job of getting the candidates to move away from their canned answers by actually answering the questions asked but, those YouTube debates had some pretty good questions, easily a cut above any of the crap that Gibson probably asked.
I'm reading a book now about the Lincoln/Douglas debates and it's really interesting. I wonder how our candidates today would've survived back then.
Too much polish, too much rehearsal, and not enough of the moderators doing their jobs by really shaping the debate. If all they are going to do is ask questions, they might as well not be there and they might as well let the candidates read the questions off a prompter. Moderators are supposed to press for answers, and the format should allow for candidates to ask each other questions and really press home their points, to be reined in by a moderator in charge.
A profile of Barack Obama written by a dedicated conservative who knew him back in his Harvard Law Review days. She has a lot of good things to say about him.
posted
Uh... I don't see it as dead. I just got to it three times. The website maybe blocked for you?
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Its a good read. To summarize, she worked with Obama at Harvard Review. Although she disagrees with Obama's politics, she is highly complimentary of him as a person. She says he's intelligent, committed, confident, and has a sense of humor. She says that despite his commitment to his ideals, he respects and listens to his adversaries, despite his harvard education he has respect for street smarts and working people.
It's kind of interesting in light of the current McCain/Clinton/media accusations that he is an elitist who's out of touch with Americans. This is someone who opposes his politics but nonetheless says that he is precisely what his supporters believe he is, he is the real thing.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Josh Marshall said Clinton won the debate. I fell asleep.
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: ABC's Democratic debate: what the hell was that?
Hey, moderators? I don't give a crap about Rev. Wright, Bosnia, lapel pins, voter bitterness or any of the other meaningless drivel you focused on for the first 45 minutes. Those questions have been answered and answered ad nauseum already. How about the war on terror, or foreign policy, or torture? How about education, or the environment, or our rising debt, or the recession? Ooh, how about health care?
Obama did not do well. Not bad on Bitter-gate and he had the better closing words, I thought. But mostly he looked tired and worn, and he stumbled a few times. Probably to be expected when he has to defend himself against his opponent and both moderators, but that's not an excuse. He'll face much worse than that later. (By the end the audience was heckling Charlie Gibson!)
Mostly what this "debate" did was demonstrate exactly the sort of media idiocy that I cannot stand. Silly enough that Stephanopolous (former Clinton staffer) was one of the moderators, but an entire evening of gotcha questions apparently designed to trip up a candidate and get a good gaffe sound byte just pisses me off. I wanted substance. I got mean-spirited cotten candy.
quote: TPM Reader KB checks in: "Josh, ABC's News' posture tonight makes perfect sense. Don't you get it? In GOP primary debates the media inquisitors take on the role of the true conservative pressing candidates to clearly and unequivocally state their answers on hot button social issues and economic talismans like the capital gains tax. In Democratic primary debates, by contrast, the media inquisitors take on the role of the true conservative pressing candidates to clearly and unequivocally state their answers on hot button social issues and economic talismans like the capital gains tax."
These comments make me glad I slept through it. Why can't real issues be the focus of debates?
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Robert Reich was secretary of labor under Clinton and is now a Prof at UC Berkley.
I thought it was interesting he calls her HRC. Is that because he does or does not like her?
I thought it was a good perspective. It was a different perspective from mine, but I wouldn't say he missed the point. He was absolutely right that fuel and food costs are rising, and people can't borrow any more to pay for them.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"...not enough of the moderators doing their jobs by really shaping the debate..."
The only useful purpose that moderators could hold would be being bound&gagged then tarred&feathered before the debates begin, as warning to the live audience and live commentators to keep their mouths shut. Nobody cares what those moderators and commentators think. Heck ya'd be hardpressed to find anybody who believes that those moderators and commentators can think.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've yet to see a Janitor attempt to shape the debates here, other than to reduce namecalling that has nothing to do with the topic and threats of violence. And I've yet to see a network moderator attempt do anything other than turn what should be a debate on the issues into bickering and petty squabbling.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The moment that I groaned was when Obama was asked about why he didn't wear a flag pin.
"I'm not questioning your patriotism. I'm questioning why you don't wear a flag pin when police officers wear flag pins."
That's the dumbest question I've ever heard, and I couldn't believe it was even considered for the debate.
I'm convinced that a lot of journalists LOVE the race. When Hillary was ahead they promoted Obama, and now that's she's mathematically out they are coddling her to keep her alive to prolong the horse race.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the implication was that since police officers wear the pin, if Obama doesn't, he's not only dissing the flag but dissing police officers.
It was a loaded, stupid question. And funny, since the answer was that he did wear one just the day before, when a veteran handed it to him.
I have come to believe that when someone say "Not to [blank]" at the beginning of a sentence, the rest of the sentence will do exactly that.
"Not to question your patriotism, but why won't you wear a flag pin?"
"Not to be a witch, but that outfit looks terrible."
"Not to be commitment-phobic, but I want to take back all the promises I've made and not make anymore but I want you to still hang around and not feel like you're being rejected."
posted
I guess it depends on one's definition of mathematically. It could easily be read to mean "short of a movement among superdelegates to go against the preference of the public as measured in primaries and caucuses." Of course, superdelegates count the same as pledged delegates. But that's how I read it.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I guess it depends on one's definition of mathematically. It could easily be read to mean "short of a movement among superdelegates to go against the preference of the public as measured in primaries and caucuses."
I don't see how that is "mathematically impossible*." The adjective "mathematically" is usually used in these situations to indicate that even if the most unlikely thing were to happen, the result at issue would not occur.
*replace with "out" - it doesn't change the meaning of my post at all.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Why can't real issues be the focus of debates?
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
