Reproductive Health Bill 5043 [MERGED]

[ZENMasterTYL]

and the hits just keep on comin'

Three more blog sites allegedly plagiarized by Senator Tito Sotto

Katatapos lang magbigay ng paliwanag ni Atty. Hector Villacorta, chief of staff ni Senator Vicente "Tito" Sotto III, sa U.S.-based blogger na nagsasabing kinopya ng senador ang isa niyang blog post.

Hindi pa humuhupa ang gulat at dismaya ng mga netizens sa ganitong balita, ngayon naman ay tatlo pang blogs ang lumalabas na kinopya rin umano ng senador para sa speech nito laban sa Reproductive Health Bill na pinagde-debatehan ngayon sa Senado.

Ayon sa ulat ng Interaksyon, na lumabas ngayong Biyernes, Agosto 17, sinabi ng award-winning novelist na si Miguel Syjuco na guilty si Senator Sotto sa pangongopya ng tatlo pang blogs.

Sa personal account niya sa Facebook, binanggit ng Canada-based Filipino novelist ang tatlong blogs na umano’y pinagkopyahan ni Senator Sotto ng ilang parte ng kanyang ikalawang speech sa Senado.

“I've gone just through Tito Sotto's second speech and discovered he lifted, verbatim, from three sources easily found online,” sabi ni Syjuco.

Sa kanyang sumunod na post, nagpasalamat siya sa kapwa blogger na si Raissa Robles, isang Filipina journalist, at sa online community na tumulong sa kanya sa pag-check.

Sinabi rin ni Syjuco: “I found three instances of verbatim plagiarism. And all I had to do was plug in the English chunks of his speech into Google.”

Narito ang paghahambing sa ikalawang talumpati ni Senator Sotto sa tatlo pang blog na nahanap ni Syjuco.

1. Senator Sotto’s speech:



“Sanger was so intent on reducing family size that she seemed to not stop even at abortion. Many believe that under the right circumstances, Sanger would have condoned infanticide. Indeed she wrote in her book Woman and the New Race: ‘The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.’

“This comes from the woman who formed the philosophical base for IPPF.

“But there was even a darker side to Margaret Sanger: a side that IPPF people try to cover up or explain away. That was her belief in ‘eugenics.’ Eugenics is defined as ‘the application of the laws of hereditary to physical and mental improvement, especially of the human race.’”

“Re-imaging Life and Family: The Global Scandal” by Marlon Ramirez on talkingsense.multiply.com, September 2008:

“…Sanger was so intent on reducing family size that she seemed to not stop even at abortion. Many believe that, under the right circumstances, Sanger would have condoned infanticide. Indeed, she wrote in her book Woman And the New Race: ‘The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.’ This comes from the woman who formed the philosophical base for Planned Parenthood. You can also see that her interest in birth control was not just due to some humane concern for health of women (which birth control doesn’t help anyway), but was driven in part by her desire to encourage women to engage in sex without having children.

“But there was another side of Margaret Sanger; a side that Planned Parenthood people try to cover up or explain away. That was her belief in eugenics. Eugenics is defined as ‘the application of the laws of heredity to physical and mental improvement, especially of the human race.’ To Sanger this meant the systematic elimination (through birth control, including abortion) of all those people she and her cohorts considered to be of ‘dysgenic stock’ in order to create a race of superior intellectuals.”

2. Senator Sotto’s speech:



“The two activists met in December of 1936 when Sanger traveled to India to speak with Gandhi about birth control, population and the plight of women in India. At that time, Sanger staunchly advocated the global use of artificial contraceptives and, in order to make the acceptance of such contraceptives easier to the Indian populace, sought to make Gandhi an ally. While Sanger claimed she merely wanted to pay her respects and give a personal tribute to Gandhi, she coveted nothing less than his endorsement of the widespread use of artificial birth control methods. Gandhi firmly stood by his belief that the spiritual bonds of marriage are strengthened by sexual abstinence. He thus completely rejected Sanger's plea for contraception as a tool to control population growth, fearing it would lead to an increase in non-procreative sex, which he viewed as immoral lust.

Part 5. Three more blog sites allegedly plagiarized by Senator Tito Sotto | PEP.ph: The Number One Site for Philippine Showbiz

[Monseratto]

Magpalalake ka...hinahamon ka ng babae.

Sotto should be ‘man enough to apologize’, says US blogger
INQUIRER.net
4:54 pm | Saturday, August 18th, 2012

MANILA, Philippines – The American blogger, who accused Senator Vicente Sotto of being a “lying thief” for allegedly plagiarizing her in his anti-Reproductive Health bill speech last week, said the lawmaker should be “man enough to say ‘I’m sorry’ and then just move on”.

Sarah Pope, who writes for the US-based TheHealthyHomeEconomist.com, had cited Russian-born physician Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride as a source in one of her blogs on the use of contraceptives – the same source quoted by Sotto in his speech against the controversial measure.

Both Pope and Sotto quoted McBride separately as claiming that contraceptives “cause an imbalance between good and bad bacteria in the intestines that breaks down the defense against infection.”

Sotto denied plagiarizing Pope although the senator’s chief of staff, Hector Villacorta, admitted that they had used Pope’s blog without any attribution.


“None of this would have happened if he [Sotto] has the guts, he must be very spineless, to not be able to be man enough to just say ‘I’m sorry,’ said Pope in a Skype interview with Radyo Inquirer 990AM Saturday.

“How hard is that to do?” asked Pope.

When asked whether she would file a case against Sotto, Pope said that while she was seeking legal counsel, this wasn’t her style and that the “right course of action would be for the senator to just apologize and then move on”.

“He should take responsibility for his staff as any leader would,” said Pope.

At the same time, Pope said that if there would be anything “positive” that would come out of this, it would be for “the Filipino people see him for what he really is”.

"He thinks he’s above the law, he can do whatever he wants, then the Filipino people should take action and vote him out of office,” said Pope.

When informed of online efforts to have Sotto subjected to an inquiry by the Senate ethics committee, Pope said, “He does need to shunned by his fellow legislators for very bad behaviour.”

Pope also took exception to Sotto’s comments about her being called as just “a blogger”, saying, “I’m not just a stupid blogger, a stupid mom who’s blogging about recipe. I’m no dummy. When a woman is condescended to like that, that is very rude.”

[chua_riwap]

mag apologize kaya?
dapat yung may paiyak effect din. . . . .

[ghosthunter]

I would prefer if he just resigns.

[Gumusut_Amige]

Double post

[Gumusut_Amige]

Inunahan kasi ng yabang... Kaya pala mahaba speech na sinasabi dahil ang daming pinagkopyahan.
Ito namang mga alipores nya di man lang nagtaka na "nakagawa" si eskalera ng ganung speech outside his normal "powers"??? Dito na ang umpisa ang pagbagsak nya kahit mag sorry pa yan

[Monseratto]

Admitting and taking full responsibility for ones mistake seperate great men from idiots...

MANILA, Philippines – One offense, two different responses.

Like Senator Vicente “Tito” Sotto III, top businessman Manuel V Pangilinan committed plagiarism for a graduation speech at the Ateneo de Manila University in 2010. But unlike Sotto, Pangilinan immediately took responsibility for it after the public took notice.

Pangilinan also resigned as Ateneo's chairman of the board after observers spotted unattributed quotes from US President Barack Obama, Oprah Winfrey, Conan O'Brien, and J. K. Rowling in his much-applauded graduation speech.

In a letter to then Ateneo president Fr Bienvenido Nebres, Pangilinan described the incident as “a source of deep personal embarrassment.” “I am afraid the damage has been done – wala talaga akong mukhang ihaharap pagkatapos,” said Pangilinan, explaining his decision to resign. (Now I have no face to show.)

The respected businessmen, of course, could have told the public to blame his speechwriters. But he himself confronted the issue. “I have had some help in the drafting of my remarks, but I take full and sole responsibility for them,” he told the Ateneo president.

Nebres, in convincing him to stay as Ateneo chair, said the incident happened “without (his) full awareness, though (he takes) full and sole responsibility.”

But Pangilinan wouldn't budge. He stepped down, because he “would seek only the honorable and principled way out.”

Not saying sorry

In contrast, Sotto has refused to say sorry “because he can't apologize for something he did not know.” His camp said it was a speechwriter who copied quotes, without attribution, from a blogger who calls herself “The Healthy Home Economist.” Sotto used the quotes for a speech against the Reproductive Health bill.

In fact, a day after the Filipino Freethinkers exposed similarities between Sotto's speech and blogger Sarah Pope's piece, the senator flatly denied accusations of plagiarism.

“Bakit ko naman iko-quote ang blogger? Blogger lang iyon. Ang kino-quote ko si Natasha Campbell-McBride,” Sotto said in an ANC interview, referring to the the source whom Pope quoted. (Why should I quote a blogger? She’s just a blogger. I’m quoting Natasha Campbell-McBride.)

On the same day, Pope confirmed that Sotto plagiarized her work. At this point, it was Sotto's chief of staff, lawyer Hector Villacorta, who came forward to apologize for what he called a “single trespass.”

But Villacorta told Rappler it was a “semi-apology” since both Sotto and Pope quoted Campbell-McBride anyway. "If you wish that you also be credited with the contents of this book,” Villacorta told the blogger, “let this be your affirmation. I can do it and by this message, I am doing it. Hope this satisfies you.”

Rappler contributor Analiza Perez-Amurao, however, pointed out such reasoning is unacceptable. The acceptable way is to cite the “source in another source,” said Amurao, an educator who teaches at a leading state university in Thailand.

A common definition of the word “plagiarize,” based on Merriam-Webster, is “to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own,” or to “use (another's production) without crediting the source. It is also “to commit literary theft” or “present as new and original and idea or product derived from an existing source.”

Feedback on stories on Sotto's speech indicates public outrage over plagiarism. In the story about Villacorta's apology, for example, over 70% of readers voted angry on the Rappler Mood Meter.

[falken]

This guy really has no shame at all.

Sotto sets privilege speech vs critics
By Marvin Sy (The Philippine Star) Updated August 19, 2012 12:00 AM Comments (0) View comments

MANILA, Philippines - Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III will again take the floor on Wednesday to deliver a privilege speech, which would take the place of the last part of his turno en contra (rebuttal) speech.

“It’s their fault. I am ready to close my turno but now I will postpone this for my privilege speech,” Sotto said yesterday, referring to American blogger Sarah Pope, who had accused him of plagiarism over his speech against the Reproductive Health bill, and several pro-RH bill groups and individuals.

He said he is fighting back and has threatened to take Pope and the proponents of the RH bill head-on in his scheduled privilege speech.

After two days of hearing the exchanges between Pope, the people attacking him in social media and his Senate staff over an entry the American made in her blog about the pill, Sotto admitted that certain lines in his turno en contra speech against the RH bill were lifted from Pope’s blog.

However, he has repeatedly denied that he committed plagiarism, as alleged by Pope, because he said he made it clear in his speeches that the contents, including the references to ideas, thoughts or medical and scientific findings were not his own.

“She was not the author of the book. If I did not mention her name then she should know that I also did not mention several other people’s names (in my speech),” he said in an interview.

Sotto’s chief of staff, lawyer Hector Villacorta, admitted that they lifted parts of Pope’s blog to present some information contained in a book written by Dr. Natasha McBride.

Pope has since gone on a campaign to make Sotto accountable for what she felt was the stealing of her intellectual property and quickly drew the support of her fellow bloggers here and abroad.

She even went as far as calling Sotto a “lying thief,” which drew the ire of the senator.

He said he was convinced the pro-RH groups are behind the latest attacks against him and that they are the ones orchestrating the smear campaign using Pope as its centerpiece.

“This is clearly a wrecking job. The pro-RH people are the same ones making a big issue out of this. If the blogger and I are on the same side in the RH debate, then I don’t need enemies” Sotto said.

“Plagiarism, whether you give attribution or not, applies only if you contend that the contents (used) are yours.

Sotto sets privilege speech vs critics - The Philippine Star » News » Headlines

[ZENMasterTYL]

Admitting and taking full responsibility for ones mistake seperate great men from idiots...

well, what do you expect from a comedian/idiot politician? make people laugh and cringe whenever they open their mouths

this one proves my point

“Bakit ko naman iko-quote ang blogger? Blogger lang iyon. Ang kino-quote ko si Natasha Campbell-McBride.”

[falken]

well, what do you expect from a comedian/idiot politician? make people laugh and cringe whenever they open their mouths

this one proves my point

“Bakit ko naman iko-quote ang blogger? Blogger lang iyon. Ang kino-quote ko si Natasha Campbell-McBride.”

Reasoning ng bopols.