Lovely Lisa defends Ann Coulter
Lisa De Pasquale is one of the nicest folks you'll meet in Washington. For many years, she was program director for the Claire Booth Luce Policy Institute -- "the Luce Ladies," as they sometimes mischievously call themselves -- and as such was responsible for helping schedule many events for Ann Coulter.
Today, in Human Events Online, lovely Lisa unloads on those accusing Coulter of plagiarism:
In his second article citing “plagiarism expert” and CEO of iParadigms John Barrie, New York Post recycler Philip Recchia gave no examples of passages that were plagiarized by Ann Coulter so the reader could compare them. Barrie, a graduate from the People’s Republic of Berkeley, is the creator of the iThenticate computer program that claims to root out plagiarism. But according to Universal Press Syndicate, the company that distributes Coulter’s widely-read column, a representative for iParadigms suspiciously said that he wasn’t sure the company “could provide the same information about Coulter as was given to the Post.”Please, go read the whole thing. Buy GODLESS ... and buy DONKEY CONS -- no, wait, buy TWO copies! (Hey, we'll even give you a FREE CHAPTER!)
Recchia simply offered vague references to old claims, including “10 facts” that were also in a Heritage Foundation paper. These facts were descriptions of projects funded by the National Endowment for the Arts. How many ways can a columnist describe a picture of “Christ submerged in a jar of urine” to its gentle readers?
Columnists for at least three publications -- the Manila Times, San Diego’s Daily Transcript and the Southern Illinoisan -- described the work of “art” in those exact same words after Coulter did so in her June 29, 2005, column. Given that it’s more likely that they read Coulter’s column than a 1991 Heritage paper that isn’t available online, does that mean they knowingly plagiarized Coulter? Of course not.
There are only so many words one can use to describe the filth funded by the NEA. Likewise, there are only so many arguments liberals can use against Coulter. Her detractors are as predictable as Pavlov’s dogs. Devoid of critical thinking, they have a conditioned reaction to successful conservatives. By the way, you may find that I am not the first person to describe the Pavlovian theory with the words “critical thinking” and “conditioned reaction.”