Posted on 08/01/2007 11:30:59 AM PDT by AndrewWalden
A PDF copy of Hillary Rodham’s senior thesis at Wellesley arrived in our inbox this morning. it is titled:
“There is only one fight …” an analysis of the Alinsky Model
Although I have no ‘loving wife’ to thank for keeping the children away while I wrote, I do have many friends and teachers who have contributed to the process of thesis-writing.
We have not had a chance to review and will do so today. Regardless, we wanted to post this as soon as possible to share with everyone. Hillary is running for President and it is important to know what she really believes. This document was hidden from public view during her husband’s presidency -= an apparent favor to the Clintons fromt he President of the university - and interest in it fell when the Clintons left office. Now with Hillary a top Democratic candidate for President the importance of this document has frothed to the surface again....
(Excerpt) Read more at gopublius.com ...
I did, and I totally agree. But I also know one thing about She Who Must Not Be Named - she’s always skated, and always will.
I don’t know if it was Kerry’s book, but it was a published book, and somebody owned the publication rights. If a person owns the rights to a book, and doesn’t want to sell it for less than $100 bucks, that doesn’t mean we can scan it onto the internet and distribute it for free.
Since the site was taken down, I’m presuming the copyright holder did not set it up to allow access to the book. Just someone trying to provide information, but doing so in the wrong way.
The real question is whether she owns it, or her professor.
A lot of times your thesis won’t be yours, but will be owned by the school, or jointly.
CharlesWayneCT
No rights are absolute.
For instance, you have rights over your neighbor’s property in the event that your neighbor maintains his property in a way that endangers your life (such as a poorly maintained dam or a store selling incense and gasoline).
So which right is of higher value? Hillary’s alleged copyright over this document or the voting public’s right to be fully aware of the views of a candidate for President of the US?
I strongly beileve in property rights, unlike Hillary who fawningly quotes Alinsky:
“The radical places human rights far above property rights.” (p. 6)
And John L Lewis:
“A man’s right to a job transcends the right of private property.” (p. 2)
It would be an act of hypocrisy for Hillary to assert copyright over this and then use that copyright to block publication—but that is exactly what she has done since 1993.
In spite of my belief in property rights, I firmly believe that the voters’ right to know is a higher right in this case.
“The real question is whether she owns it, or her professor.”
I hadn’t really thought of that. I would say the university should have the rights. They awarded a degree for something and should be able to produce what prompted them to bestow the honor.
A copyright is a right to intellectual property conferred by federal law in accordance whith the Constitution, which specifically gives Congress the power to legislate in that area.
On the other hand, there is no collective "voting public's right to be fully aware of the views of a candidate for President of the US." One cannot sue a candidate for any office on that basis unless the claim is that the candidate has violated some law requiring him or her to fully disclose his or her views. To the best of my knowledge, there is no such broad law and never has been, nor would it be practical to enact one.
So there really is no conflict at all. The copyright holder has the copyright, and anyone who uses the copyrighted material without consent from the copyright holder and in other than a manner consistent with the Supreme Court's "fair use" doctrine opens himself to a possible copyright infringement suit.
ping
From the WaPo article: “In the end, Clinton gave Alinsky mixed reviews, admiring his charisma and his goal of democratic equality while questioning the usefulness and staying power of a small-bore approach based on stirring up conflict in the inner city.”
Why would Wellesley have the copyright? It's Hillary's unless she specifically assigned, in writing, all copyrights to the College and I've never heard of that.
"Clinton's interest was more intellectual -- she turned down the job offer -- and she has said little about Alinsky since their association became a favorite subject of conservative critics during her husband's presidency."
Alinsky knew her personally and was a mentor to her!
"Much of Alinsky's agenda, she wrote after interviewing him three times, "does not sound 'radical.'
"When she returned for her senior year that September, Clinton decided to write a thesis on the war on poverty. Her adviser suggested Alinsky. She called her 92-page work, after a line in a T.S. Eliot poem, " 'There Is Only the Fight . . . ': An Analysis of the Alinsky Model."
"Clinton's 2003 memoir, "Living History," devotes a single paragraph to Alinsky, whom she describes as "a colorful and controversial figure who managed to offend almost everyone." She wrote that she agreed with some of Alinsky's ideas, "particularly the value of empowering people to help themselves," but that she rejected his job offer because of a "fundamental disagreement."
"Alinsky said I would be wasting my time," Clinton recalled, "but my decision was an expression of my belief that the system could be changed from within."
On what do you base your assertion that Alinsky was a "mentor" to Hillary if her sole contact was three interview sessions? If the WaPo article is correct, it was Hillary's adviser who suggested that Alinsky be the subject of her thesis. Do you have information to the contrary?
then you went down to the DMV to get your license renewed and realized 'God I hate these people.'
Uh, how do you “ride” a car?
Just messin with ya... You know, now that BS O’Reilly says we’re a hate site. hahaha
Everything she has written can be defended by her on her worst day and make her come out looking more caring and the most well intended person on the face of the earth looking out for the common people.
If there is something that makes her look in any way negative it will all be erased by claims of youth and innocence
If Hillary can defend it and come out looking good then why didn’t Clinton inc. release it before you ask?
I’m glad you asked, while the Clinton's can pull strings and have anything they have done disappear, they cant remove things that are already published, such as articles, books, writing's of other Marxist types, this posed a problem to Clinton inc.
So that brings us to the problem of the Hillary Clinton thesis and its rather funny and typical Clinton. Her thesis can make her look worldly, smart and fighter for the have nots but can also bring charges of dare I say it....plagiarism!
Just to continue the thought, since you feel the right to know about a candidate is some greater right than property rights, should we have the right to break into her house to look for anything else she might have written?
Should we be able to bug her phones?
What about Watergate? That was an act meant to learn more about a presidential candidate. Somehow, most people seem to think that was a bad thing, but if the right to know Eagleton was under psychiatric care was greater than property rights, shouldn’t we have forgiven the people who did the break-in?
I do tend to treat basic constitutional rights as more absolute than some people. I wouldn’t want someone deciding their right to know something about me trumps my right to control my own property.
Arrangements with colleges are very weird.
A colleague and I wrote a paper related to a class we were taking, to present at a conference.
Our professor had his name on our paper. I imagine it counts now as one of his published works.
Of course, he did teach us, and he did sponsor our presentation, and he did grade our paper (which means he reviewed it).
Hillary Clinton’s hidden socialist college thesis — now available online
Jeremayakovka | May 2, 1969 | Hillary D Rodham
Posted on 08/01/2007 3:34:07 AM EDT by AndrewWalden
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1874599/posts
You wrote:
there is no collective “voting public’s right to be fully aware of the views of a candidate for President of the US.”
Sure there is:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Amendment 1, US COnstitution
That right, as relates to the coming elections, is of higher value than any alleged claim to copyright over this document. No rights are absolute.
“Although I have no ‘loving wife’ to thank for keeping the children away while I wrote, I do have many friends and teachers who have contributed to the process of thesis-writing.”
A thoroughly bizarre introduction from a College senior.
Signet to a swan, with a lot of help from the folks at "Nip and Tuck", plus the tooth fairy, with the closing of the whistle gap in the front.
The thing I can't understand is: Why are her numbers still going up?
How can so many folks out there be so wrong?
PING
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.